mmp:m;m'^>'''t'^.y%^^^^ ^ 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

Ir^i?. 



^/z. 






'te'C-x. # 



UNITED STATES OP AMERICA, t 



THE CITY OF GOD 



AKD 



THE OHUEOH-MAKERS 



AN EXAMINATION INTO STRUCTUBAL CHRISTIANITY, AND CRITICISM OF 
CHRISTIAN SCRIBES AND DOCTORS OF THE LAW. 



R. ABBEY. 




^f^^ 



NEW YORK: 

PUBLISHED BY HURD AND HOUGHTON. 

Camiirftfflc: MtborjEfOre ^xt^g* 

1872. 



^ 



\'di\ 



\^ 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1872, by 

HuBD AND Houghton, ♦ 

in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



AIVERSIDE, CAMBBISaE: 

ITEREOTTPED AND PRINTED Bt 

B. 0. HODGHTON AND COMPANT. 



NOTE. 



Everybody knows that some of the greatest hindrances 
to the spread of Christianity are found in the Church. 
Among the foremost of these may be named the dissen- 
sions and animosities among the several denominations. 
And this is consequent on the diversity of view and opin- 
ion as to the legal character of the " Primitive Church," so 
called. The great question is held to be, How did Jesus 
Christ organize the first Church? Did He do it this way, 
or that way ? Did He place it under the rule of a Pope, 
or Bishops, or Elders, or the suffrages of all the members ? 
If a Pope, what powers did He give him, either absolute 
or contingent ? If Bishops, what limitations, if any, were 
prescribed to them ? K ministerial parity was the primary 
law, then how was the body of Elders governed ? And if 
the first Church was " republican," then what ? How was 
power reached, wielded, etc. ? 

Beginning with the unnatural and mythical error that 
Jesus Christ formed a new Church at all, the strife begins ; 
and nine tenths of all our Church troubles is the natural 
result. The trouble is not the existence of different de- 
nominations. That is natural and harmless. The damage 
is in the lessening, or the unchurching of each other, be- 
cause of the supposed non-conformity of Christians to this 
fabulous model. The strife is about a myth, a fact that 
never happened. « 

Ecce Ecclesta, as also Church and Ministry, and Ecclesi- 
astical Constitution, which preceded it a number of years, 
were more feeble attempts to set forth The City of God, 
the natural and spontaneous association of Christian peo- 



IV 



Note. 



pie, as the Church is frequently called in Scripture, in 
contrast with the multitudinous Church of the Ghurch-mah- 
ers. 

If this book is not wofiiUy wrong, then the work of the 
Church-makers is the most astonishing feature in the his- 
tory of the Church, or in any other history. That such 
errors have not been before pointed out and cured is as- 
tounding. But I have no more wonder for others than for 
myself, for I have long drifted in the same channel, and 
labored in Church-making as honestly and industriously as 
others. " I verily thought with myself," that the Church 
was a corporation, working under a charter prescribed " at 
the first," by Jesus Christ. This was the teaching of my 
youth, and the sum of the unbroken lessons of my riper 
years. With no other reading, no other teaching, it 
formed in me, as in others, the staple of a religious educa- 
tion. In some form or other I read it in almost every 
book I read, and heard it in almost every sermon I heard. 
It was the unquestioned predicate of all arguments, the 
basis of all exhortations, and the axiom of all doctrines. 
"Jesus Christ made a totally new religion and new 
Church," was the sum of the Christianity we have been 
taught. Nothing but the very power of God could sus- 
tain the Church under such a load of error. I thank God 
I have lived long enough to correct some of my own par- 
ticipations in them ! 

More than twenty years ago, I thought leak-hole^ were 
discoverable in this popular Church notion. From that 
day to this present, it is neither presumption nor egotism to 
say that, to get rid of these shackles, " I labored more 
abundantly than they all." 

I am not unmindful of the responsibility of such a pub- 
lication as this, but, of course, without ability to measure 
it. Books, and prayers, and midnight hours, and foolscap 
written and burned, 'and public lectures, and pulpit labors, 
and private consultations, have at least borne witness to 
an honest industry in the premises. This book was writ- 
ten and carefully examined by the best and soberest coun- 
sel known to me, several years ago. But nerve faltered, 



Note, V 

and responsibility hesitated and drew back. The fancied 
iron in a will, not yet well tested, proved insufficient. The 
thoughtful reader may perceive the cause of this shrinking. 
He who deems it an easy thing, or pleasant, or agreeable 
to human feelings, or can calculate about the novelty of 
appearing original, in such a publication as this, has 
sounded the depths of social life and pious feeling to little 
purpose. A little less than threescore and ten years of 
varied and active life have, it is hoped, been sufficient to 
cure any risings of green ambition, that may have lurked 
around the fond anticipations of younger manhood. I 
dreaded the publication. With as clear a view in it of the 
City of God, as ever of the sun seen in the heavens, my 
heart and flesh recoiled before the gaze of mistaken judges, 
and the accredited scribes. Meanwhile friends urged and 
wrote, — " Publish it ! publish it ! Why do you not publish 
it ? Write on ! The Church needs it ; God calls for it ; 
duty, not feelings, must govern. Publish ; feed the lambs, 
and challenge the doctors to read ! " 

I am somewhat aware of, though I cannot account for 
the principle, that declares war to the knife against the 
man who dares to disturb opinions or teachings regarded 
by such belligerents as settled. Secretly he is declared an 
outlaw. Innovation is the. unpardonable sin. Galileo is 
not the only man who has been imprisoned. Men will die 
at the stake rather than give up a stereotyped lesson, or 
even a long-accustomed mode of teaching it. The law has 
long since gone forth from the high halls of power and 
folly, that the man who dares to question " standard author- 
ity " is the enemy of his race ; and if he cannot be reached 
by the siege guns of reason and argument, he must at least 
be pestered, teazed, and annoyed to death by .the scribbling 
million. 

The man who holds this pen has sometimes almost nerve 
enough to question whether there is any " authority " in 
theology or ecclesiastical science outside the Bible, that is 
absolutely standard. But while he does so he yields to 
no man in deference to the opinions, the learning, or the 
teachings of the talented, the wise, and the good. With a 



Ti Note, 

proper respect, as he thinks, for the authors he criticises, 
but with a far higher regard for the Church and the sub- 
jects treated, he has, after some trial, and under the urg- 
ings of duty, keyed up a nerve sufficiently to enable him 
to hand this little manuscript to the printer. God and 
the Church will take care of it ! 



CONTENTS. 



PAQB 

I. Errors op Authors 1 

n. The Apostolate ; 208 

III. Matthew xvi. 18 219 

IV. The Ancient Promise of a Saviour . . . 224 
V. The First Church Council at Jerusalem . . 227 

VI. The Kingdom of Heaven 235 

Vn. The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century . . 243 

VIII. The Romish Church System 251 

IX. Romanism among Protestants 259 

X. The Jews 267 

XI. The Apostolic Succession 276 

Xn. Who are Converted Jews? 281 

XIII. Modern or Post-Messianic Jews .... 283 

XIV. Modes of Teaching in Different Ages . . 291 
XV. The Mystical Body of Christ 296 

XVI. The Hundred and Twenty Disciples . . . 299 

XVII. The Trial and Execution of Jesus .... 304 



INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 



Appeal is earnestly and affectionately made to Chris- 
tian people, of all names and tenets, in behalf of the things 
herein presented. That they are important in a high de- 
gree to the simple understanding and practice of Chris- 
tianity by the common people, as well as by scholars, none 
will probably question. They certainly underlie nearly all 
the great questions of Chi^stianity. The author is not 
raising questions for debate, nor has he any party, school, 
sect, or denomination to oppose or to support. The reader 
will find nothing herein that he will consider debatable, or 
from which he will dissent, when fairly understood. 

It is claimed, nevertheless, that many of our best authors, 
with most surprising inconsistency, and blind following of 
each other, frequently contradict some of the most impor- 
tant and well settled principles of both theology and eccle- 
siastical science. These erroneous teachings are radical, 
fundamental, and belong as well to the primary lessons of 
the nursery and the Sunday-school, as to the higher clas- 
sics. They misguide us every day in our nurseries, our 
pulpits, and our studies. By them Church exclusiveness, 
intolerance, and bigotry are fostered ; denominational strife 
is enkindled, and worse still, Romish and High Church 
superstition and error are furnished with all the apparent 
plausibilities they claim to possess. 

AppSal is made to the urgency and stress of the case. 
It does not admit of mere questions of finesse, and party 
successes and advantages. Religious truth is suffering. 
It is a wonder the Church lives and thrives, under such a 
load of error and misteaching. 



X Introductory Address. 

A large number of our books are seriously defective. We 
take religious writers too much on trust. Denominational 
support is greatly injuring us. The greatest compliment 
paid to Ecce Ecclesia is, that it could not be discovered to 
what Church the author belonged. 

Some will complain that I make an indiscriminate on- 
slaught upon the authors. A more important inquiry would 
be, whether their truths or their errors are objected to. 
Do blunders and misstatements become true by prescrip- 
tion ? Or is their value added to by the mere force of 
names ? 

Others may object that the author is arrogant, dogmatic, 
and peremptory in his criticism. That may be very likely ; 
but who cares anything about the author ? The book is 
the only thing presented to the public. It is a wonder such 
objections, so utterly imimportant, should be thought of. 
Perhaps the printer was unamiable. Another may object, 
that the authors are made to teach what they did not in- 
tend. That is also quite likely. But who cares anything 
about the intentions of authors ? We are concerned only 
in their teachings. The only question with us is, What do 
they write ? What is actually understood from their les- 
sons? And even if a more or less strained explanation 
would relieve them, what care the people for that? The 
responsibility of authors attaches not to a defensive criti- 
cism, or perhaps hypercriticism, but to their plain, simple 
lessons, unexplained and undefended. It is a miserable 
author who needs explanation, and defense. Theological 
teachings, especially such as are intended for popular use, 
must carry an obvious meaning on their face. Children, 
and some grown people, do not always carry critics with 
them. 

In the following pages, two hundred authors shall speak 
for themselves. Care has been taken to give their lan- 
guage its plainest, simplest, and most obvious meaning. 
Let any man read, and then say if I controvert doctrines 
not taught. We then proceed to inquire. What do these 
authors teach ? The following is a brief summary of some 
of the things they inculcate. They are generally under- 



Introductory Address, xi 

stood as I state them. Strange as it may seem, on reflec- 
tion, the following glaring and dangerous errors do form a 
large amount of the common creed of the Church, espe- 
cially the more unintelligent portions of it. Let the reader 
read slowly and note carefully. 

First. There are two separate and distinct systems of 
religion in Scripture, one in the Old Testament, and one 
in the New. The former is called the Law, and the latter 
the Gospel. 

Second. This first system, generally called Judaism, was 
a mere temporary system, not designed for mankind at 
large, but for a special people, the Jews only. 

Third. The condition of salvation under the law, Juda- 
ism, or the Old Testament, was the performance of certain 
religious rites and ceremonies, particularly the killing of 
certain animals by way of atonement for sin. 

Fourth. The ceremonial slaying and offering of animals 
in sacrifice under the law was a real, proper, and true sac- 
rifice. 

Fifth. When Christ appeared, He, by his supreme au- 
thority, abrogated this system of Old Testament religion, 
or Judaism, and forever discontinued all ceremonial wor- 
ship. 

Sixth. The Saviour at the same time ordained and 
established for all mankind forever, a wholly new religious 
system, called Christianity, or the gospel. This new sys- 
tem was so thoroughly novel, that not a principle or doc- 
trine of it ever existed before. 

Seventh. This new religion, and the salvation it intro 
duced, rests upon the atonement of Christ, was not re- 
stricted to Jews, as the old religion was, but was for all 
men. It rested not on external observances, as did the 
old, but on the new principle of faith in. Christ. 

Eighth. Christ invited, entreated, and commanded the 
Jews to abandon their old religion, and embrace the gos- 
pel ; but they all refused except a very few, perhaps twelve 
or twenty or so. 

Ninth. All the Jews, except those very few, being very 
wicked, and accustomed to their formal religion of the Old 



xii Introductory Address. 

Testament, refused the gospel, and their descendants still 
adhere strongly to the old religion of the Old Testament. 

Tenth. The whole Jewish people, therefore, became very- 
much incensed against the Saviour for attempting to de- 
stroy their religion, and they unanimously sought and pro- 
cured his death. 

Eleventh. When Pilate sought to release Jesus, the whole 
body of the Jews cried out, " Crucify Him ! His blood be 
on us and our children ! " and this imprecation was answered 
by the destruction of the Jewish temple, and the dismem- 
berment of the Jewish state. 

Twelfth. At and prior to this time, all worship in the old 
Church was confined to the temple at Jerusalem ; but now, 
in the new Christian Church, permission was given to wor- 
ship anywhere. 

Thirteenth. The Saviour not only abrogated the religion 
of the Old Testament, but the Church also. He opposed, 
cursed, and abandoned the old Church, and set up a new 
and different one in its stead. 

Fourteenth. This new Church was set up in Jerusalem 
\j^ith entirely new laws, new conditions of membership, new 
officers, new government, new ritual, and new principles of 
every kind. It began with a few members, perhaps twelve 
or twenty. 

Fifteenth. The Saviour also instituted a new ministry, 
on an entirely new basis, the old being dissolved and the 
ministers all being deposed. 

Sixteenth. This new ministry of the new Church was at 
the first composed of the eleven or twelve apostles, others 
being added after. 

Seventeenth. This new ministry was violently opposed 
by all the old ministers and members of the old Church. 
So when they began to preach the gospel in Jerusalem, 
the entire world was against them. 

Eighteenth. At the first meeting of note of the new 
Church, three thousand people were converted, and joined 
the Church, renouncing wholly the religion of the Old Tes- 
tament ; the Holy Ghost being now for the first time intro- 
.duced among men. 



Introductory Address, xiii 

Nineteenth. The Lord also established new sacraments 
in the new Church, they being a kind of mystery, and sign 
of existing- grace. 

Twentieth. This new Church and religion were not a 
reform of the old. Both the religion and Church of the 
Old Testament were so utterly defective and unsuited to 
mankind, that they were both wholly destroyed. 

Twenty-first. Some of the first Christians apostatized 
from the new faith, and lapsed back into the religion of the 
Old Testament. This gave the apostles great concern, and 
Paul wrote several epistles, cautioning the Church against 
the religion of the Old Testament. 

Twenty-second. The Jews at. the birth of Jesus were all 
the lineal descendants of Abraham ; and the Jews of the 
present day are their descendants, constituting their entire 
posterity, and holding their religion, that is, the religion of 
the Old Testament. 

Twenty-third. The two systems of salvation called re- 
spectively the Law, and the Gospel, sustaining a chronolog- 
ical relation to each other, cannot coexist. 

Twenty-fourth. So Jesus Christ being divine, and the 
head of the Church, its founder and the framer of its char- 
ter and laws, the test of a Church's identity must be the 
original model. This model we gather from various de- 
scriptions of it in the New Testament. A true Church 
now must be the same, in succession, as the original, with 
the same prescribed laws and same government. 

Now I will not say that every one of these twenty -four 
articles, just as written, is taught by every one of the au- 
thors here quoted ; but it is said that they are held and 
taught in terms by a large number of them, and that they 
all teach all these errors in some form, by fair implication. 
And further, that great masses of Christians in all the 
churches understand the Scriptures that way, through the 
misteachings herein complained of. 

Instead of these errors the following theses are not only 
true, but will probably be held incontrovertible. 

First. Scripture knows but one system of religion. 
The Old and New Testaments teach the same. 



xiv Introductory Address. 

Second. There was never any temporary system for 
Jews or for anybody else. . The only religion known to 
any part of Scripture was for all mankind. 

Third. The law knows no salvation. The supposition 
is absurd. Ceremonies are modes of worshipping and of 
inculcating truth. They have the same place in religion 
now that they always had. 

Fourth. Sacrifice for sin was always exactly the same in 
all ages of the world. There was never any other than 
Christ, our Saviour. In the early age the slaying of ani- 
mals was a mere instrumental mode of teaching the doc- 
trine, as books are now. 

Fifth. The Saviour never abrogated or changed any 
system of religion or doctrines, but always maintained 
and enforced the doctrines of the Old Testament. He 
never abrogated ceremonies. There are probably as many 
in use in the Church now as there ever were. Neverthe- 
less, a number of religious ceremonies ceased forever at 
that time. But those that ceased did so, not by any means 
because of any authoritative command, but because of 
the absolute and natural necessity of the thing. These 
particular ceremonies shadowed forth the incarnation ; theo 
how could they continue afterward ? No other ceremonies 
ceased but those of that class, and for that reason. When a 
thing is seen it is no longer adumbrant. 

Sixth. The Saviour never ordained, established, or taught 
any Christianity different from the rehgious doctrines of 
the Old Testament. The gospel of the New Testament is 
the gospel of the Old. They differ not m doctrines or 
principles, but merely in modes of teaching. 

Seventh. All religion of all Scripture was always plenary 
as to all mankind. It was never restricted as to Jews or 
anybody else. It always rested on faith in Christ, and 
never on external observances. 

Eighth. The Saviour entreated and commanded all the 
Jews to adhere strictly to their old religion, and not depart 
from it ; and great multitudes, probably one half or more, 
did so ; and their successors, afterward called Christians, 
have continued to do so, at least nominally, to this day. 



Introductory Address. xv 

Ninth. About a full half or more of the Jews in the 
time of the apostles were among the most noble, pious, 
and self-sacrificing Christians known to the history of the 
Church. For about ten years after the death of Jesus they 
constituted the entire Apostolic Church, apostles and all. 
It is not known that they or any of them ever opposed 
the Saviour in the least, or in any way. The people 
known as Jews now are descendants, not by any means of 
the Jews in general of that age, but of those only who in 
that age apostatized from their religion by denying Jesus 
as the Christ, and who thereby constituted themselves a 
new and false Church, with a new and false faith unknown 
to Scripture. 

Tenth. Very few of the Jews, probably not more than 
one or two hundred, if so many, out of all their millions, 
had, or could have had, anything to do with the crucifixion. 
They could not even know of it until afterwards. So far 
as their sentiments are known, they were, with very few 
exceptions, the friends of the Saviour and in favor of the 
Messiahship of Jesus, at the time of his death, or at least 
were not opposed to it. 

Eleventh. The cry " Crucify Him ! " was the reckless ex- 
clamation of a little handful of rabble at the governor's 
door, where there could have been only a few persons, 
perhaps twenty or fifty. Its connection with the siege of 
Jerusalem, forty years after, is mere fancy. 

Twelfth. At, and for hundreds of years prior to, the time 
of Christ, congregational worship, as now, was common 
among the Jews everywhere. So far as we know, it never 
was confined to the three great temples, much less to that 
at Jerusalem. 

Thirteenth. Jesus Christ never, so far as there is the 
least intimation, entertained a sentiment unfriendly to the 
Church of his. fathers. On the contrary He loved and sup- 
ported it to the hour of his death. A new Church was 
not dreamed of in that age. It is the invention of a far 
later period. Besides being historically untrue, it is philo- 
sophically impossible. The supposition destroys the very 
idea of the Church. 



xvi Introductory Address, 

Fourteenth. Neither did the Saviour prescribe any gov- 
ernment for the Church, either in whole or in part. Nor 
did He institute a new ministry, or depose old ministers. 

Fifteenth. There was no time within a hundred years of 
the apostolic age, in which we are allowed to infer that 
there existed in the true Church, less than thousands of 
true, divinely accredited ministers of the gospel. 

Sixteenth. The gospel, all the gospel known to Scrip- 
ture — that is, the tidings of salvation by Christ — was 
preached in the days of Abel and the prophets. 

Seventeenth. On the day of Pentecost, as it is called, the 
three thousand spoken of were all in the Church, and we 
are obliged to infer that at least many of them were pious. 
So we are not at liberty to suppose that they were all then 
converted, though some may have been. They did not 
join the Church, for they were already in it. 

Eighteenth. The establishment of new sacraments in the 
Church, at any time, w^ould be an impossibility, because it 
would imply a new religion, which implies a changed duty, 
or a new human nature, or . both. Sacrament is religious 
obligation. This grows out of the natural relation of man 
to his Maker. So Jesus did not appoint sacraments, but the 
modes of administering the sacraments. The two things 
are widely different. 

Nineteenth. The divine abrogation or disannulment of a 
divinely recognized Church is not simply impossible, it is 
more ; it is an absurdity. The repeal of any divine law is 
impossible. 

Twentieth. For Christians, at any time, to lapse, or back- 
slide, into the religion of the Old Testament, is an absurd- 
ity, because the Old Testament enjoins the highest style 
of Christian piety. You might as well suppose one to lapse 
into the religion of the New Testament. 

Twenty-first. The Jews, in the days of Jesus, as the 
Church in that period is generally called, were not proba- 
bly, one in a thousand, descended from Abraham lineally, 
Both the law and the practice was, that they mix by inter- 
marriage with all people everywhere, who could be induced 
to join them. They were probably more nationally mixed 



Introductory Address. xvii 

than other peoples of that age. The people known as 
Jews, since that age, are by no means the descendants, 
either nationally, religiously, or ecclesiastically, of the mass 
of Jews living in the time of Jesus ; but only and exclu- 
sively of those who apostatized by denying the Christship 
in Jesus. This apostate offshoot from the Church was prob- 
ably less than half the number. 

Twenty-second. Christians, at and since the apostolic 
age, are lineally the regular, straightforward descendants 
and successors of the Jews as seen at the birth of Jesus, 
religiously and ecclesiastically, though much mixed by in- 
termarriage with others. This must be so on supposition 
that Christianity is the true religion as contrasted with 
modern Judaism. 

Twenty-third. The Law, as that term is used in jux- 
taposition to Gospel, is • not a system of salvation, but of 
absolute obedience, before salvation was either known or 
necessary. The law still exists in all its force ; but Christ, 
with salvation, assists us in meeting its demands. So the 
two systems form themselves into one, and coexist, since 
Christ was furnished to the world in the days of Adam. 
The term law is also used in Scripture to mean various 
things. Frequently it means the ritualistic rules prescribed 
through Moses. These are mere instrumental modes of 
teaching and enforcing the principles of salvation. 

Twenty-fourth. The supposition that the Christian Church 
must have been organized with a prescribed law of govern- 
ment, at some particular time, because it now exists, is a 
great error. No such event ever happened, or could have 
happened. Such a religious corporation would not be a 
Church. Religious people from the very first associated 
together as such, naturally and necessarily, because they 
were religious. Association necessitates rules, and all 
churches make their own rules. Christ is the Head of 
the Church, therefore, in its spiritual and religious aspects, 
but not as referring to external government. 

K the Saviour organized the twelve apostles into a cor- 
porate society for the propagation of Christianity, then, — 
because that means that He prescribed a law of govern- 



xviii Introductory Address, 

ment for it to be in perpetual force — then the very 
form of the government was divine. It is a revelation, 
and then, nothing can be a Church that varies from that 
form.. The society has omnipotent power of perpetuity. 
The outward identity must be maintained. Then I see 
not how the doctrine of Infallibility is so easily avoided 
— not personal, but official infallibility ; not human, but di- 
vine infallibility, conferred upon the corporation, not on the 
individual members. Whether that infallibility is to be 
found in the decisions of the president — call him Pope, if 
you will — or on some board or council, is a very different 
and very incidental question. 

This doctrine of the Church's corporate formation is the 
only fundamental principle, that underlies all Romanism, 
and all High Churchism, of every grade and kind. Let 
that be conceded, and Romanism is at least plausible, if 
not necessary. Then ministerial, if not prelatical apostolic 
succession follows ; and then Church exclusiveness, Camp- 
bellism, exclusion of children from the Church, and a train 
of pestiferous evils and disadvantages follow, which, to say 
the least, hang heavily as clogs upon the Church. 

The doctrine of the corporate formation of the Church 
also furnishes logical infidelity the greater portion of its 
support; indeed it is the most formidable enemy the 
Church has, or ever had. It is, one way or another, in 
many more ways than a casual observer would suppose, the 
fountain, the father, of almost all our religious troubles, 
theological and ecclesiastical. 

In the above twenty-four theses, the reader is shown at 
a glance the blunders in brief outline, which are exposed 
more fully in the following pages. Blunders, I say, for the 
statements cannot be believed. Opinions and blunders are 
different things. 

The erroneous teachings herein controverted, besides the 
support they give to Romanism, to prelatical and Camp- 
bellitish High Churchism of a more direct kind, have 
largely taught the people almost, and sometimes wholly, to 
repudiate the Old Testament Scriptui'es as a rule of life ; 
and by many they are held only as a sort of historic pre- 



Introductory Address. xix 

lude to the real Scriptures. And so, how often has it been 
gravely inquired whether this or that has been " reenacted," 
in the New Testament ! There are many and grave au- 
thors among them, who hold that Old Testament Scripture, 
to be binding, must be reenacted. 

The scholarly reader will be likely to find too much 
repetition herein. He will be pleased to bear in mind that 
the essay is intended for the masses. Many extracts sim- 
ilar to those published are passed over, while some pains 
has been taken to give them a range pretty wide, over most 
of the field of the science of the Church, as well as some 
glances into theology. 

The reader is again requested to bear in mind, because 
it is important, that it is no part of the author's business to 
criticise the authors, merely to point out their errors. 
What good would it do to show that a certain man, who 
wrote a book, was right, or was wrong, in this or in that ? 
That might be a legitimate business for critics, or review- 
ers ; but these criticisms are of a very different sort. They 
are about books, not men. The inquiry is. What do the 
books teach, as they are actually understood ? What do the 
people — the masses, the children, not scholars — believe 
on these subjects, after reading the passages herein quoted ? 
And what boots it, though more extensive readers find out 
that the author believed the reverse of what is stated? 
The poison has gone forth, and is lodged in ten thousand 
places, where the antidote does not reach. 

Care has been had to quote in convenient form for clear 
inspection. Brief passages are selected for brevity. The 
same things are often found in more voluminous passages. 
Infringement on the context is carefully avoided. Hyper- 
criticism is neither indulged in, nor allowed in others. 

Perhaps it may not be amiss again to caution the reader 
against supposing these criticisms set up opinions, or matter 
of belief, different from the authors criticised. Strange as 
it may seem, there is and can be but little, if any differ- 
ence of opinion here. With a few exceptions, if indeed 
there be any, the errors pointed out are mere blunders, not 
statements of belief With a few exceptions of Roman 



XX Introductory Address, 

Catholic and other High Church, and a very few semi-infi- 
del writers, it is well and abundantly known, that the au- 
thors themselves believed no such things as they themselves 
have so plainly written. They are for the most part pure 
blunders, not opinions. It is my business to point them 
out for the Church, but not mine, more than others, to ac- 
count for them. This, it must be confessed, would be diffi- 
cult. 

But there are a few things of which we might be re- 
minded. In the first place, authors, and especially religious 
authors, are more likely, unconsciously, to follow file-leaders, 
than almost any other class of men. Again, it is seen at a 
glance that the fundamental ideas of a new Church and 
new religion are absolutely necessary to the existence of 
Romanism and all other forms of High Churchism. And 
hence the necessity in that quarter, that the belief be kept 
up. Thirdly, since the Lutheran reformation, the question 
whether Jesus and the apostles did or did not organize a 
new Church, and teach a new religion, has not been brought 
prominently forward and debated at all, that I am aware 
of. Strange as it may seem, it has been suffered to pass 
without inquiry. 

The reader is now introduced to about two hundred 
authors. 



THE CITY OF GOD 

AND THE 

CHUROH-MAKEES. 



ERRORS OF AUTHORS. 

1. .Ruter's G-regory, p. 23, tells us that "The 
greater number of the first converts to Christianity- 
were of the Jewish nation," 

This gives a wrong impression. All the first con- 
verts, if he chooses so to call it, to Christianity — 
that is, to Jesus as Christ, before the preaching to 
Cornelius, about ten years after the crucifixion — 
were Jews, without exception. At this time the 
belief in Jesus, that He was Christ, had spread into 
almost all countries, and the Christians must have 
amounted to many thousands, if not to millions. But 
these persons were in no proper sense converts. 
They were merely persons who continued steadfastly 
to adhere to their former faith. 

2. Nevins's Biblical Antiquities^ p. 414, says : 
" It may be remembered also, that the Lord's Sup- 
per, which was regularly celebrated in the Christian 
churches every week, was an institution altogether 
peculiar to their worship, to which there was noth- 



2 The City of Qod, 

ing that corresponded in any way whatever in the 
services of the synagogue." 

So far from this being true, the Lord's Supper was 
the identicg^l passover itseK, and sq expressly declared 
and denominated by the Saviour himself. Only the 
mode of administering it was new. 

3. Dr. George Smith ^Elements of Divinity^ p. 
167) says the Old Testament was " specially made 
to the elect people ; " and that the New was " in- 
tended for the world." Then what right have, we 
to use it as Scripture, and farther to thwart the 
divine intention by continually publishing it to the 
world ? 

4. On page 193, he says the Gospel of John " de- 
scribes the rise and progress of the Christian Church 
in Judea." 

This is likely to make a wrong impression, because 
it is unquestionably true, that there was then, and 
had been for many centuries in Judea, a' regular 
Church, divinely recognized, and which was essen- 
tially Christian. 

5. Schaff, in his Church History^ p. 39, says:. 
" Christianity, at the first, had to sustain a mighty 
conflict with Judaism and heathenism." 

In other words, Christ and the apostles, in teach- 
ing true religion, set up and waged a mighty con- 
flict against the revealed religion of Scripture, and 
also against heathenism ! 

6. On page 172, Schaff says : " The Jews were 
split at the time of Christ, into three sects — the 
Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes." 

This statement is directly against all the reliable 
history there is on the subject. First, the Pharisees, 
Sadducees, and Essenes were not sects at all, as we 



Errors of Authors. 3 

use that term. They were sects in philosophy, not 
religious sects. Secondly, it cannot be said that the 
Jewish Church was split into these three societies, 
when the former numbered many milhons, and the 
latter, at the highest estimates, never numbered over 
about ten or eleven thousand. You might as well 
say that the Christian Church, in the nineteenth cen- 
tury, was split into three classes of lecturers in the 
Smithsonian Institute. 

7. Dr. Schaff (^Church History, p. 214) tells us 
that the Old Testament " ordains circumcision for all 
time." 

But Paul certainly understood the Old Testament 
differently. He understood circumcision to be the 
mode of administering the initiating ordinance for the 
period of the Church anterior to the death of Christ 
exclusively, and as anticipating that event. And a 
greater than Paul so understood the Old Testament, 
Did our Saviour, in administering that ordinance as 
we do now, violate the law of the Old Testament ? 
Did He ever, in one jot or tittle, to use his own words, 
infringe upon any rule of Scripture ? Such ceremo- 
nies as were ordained for that period alone, were 
so recognized and so disposed of. Did the Saviour, 
or any inspired New Testament writer, ever depart 
from the rule, " Thus it is written " ? 

8. Dean Milman, in his History of Christianity^ 
first paragraph of Preface, says that Christianity is 
" the new relation established between man and the 
Supreme Being." 

This cannot be, because that would necessitate a 
change in the character of God, or the nature of 
man, or both ; either of which is out of the question. 
The relation between God and man is not a subject 



4 The City of God, 

of prescription or legislation at all. It results spon- 
taneously and necessarily from the character of God 
and the nature of man. 

9. Dean Milman says : " About this point of time 
Christianity appeared." That is, at the time of the 
preaching of the Saviour. 

No, sir ! Christianity is as clearly written by 
Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, as by Matthew, John, 
and Paul. And Dean Milman himself so teaches us 
in more than a hundred places. 

10. At page 28, Deaai Milman says that " God is 
power in the old religion ; He is love under the new." 

And the book says that God is without variable- 
ness, or even the shadow of turning. 

11. At page 90, Milman says, speaking of the 
morality of Jesus, that, " It was morahty, grounded 
on broad and simple principles, which had hitherto 
never been laid down as the basis of human action." 

And yet, with all other theologians, he teaches 
that all conceivable human morals, in their simple 
principles, are laid down as the basis of human action 
in the twentieth chapter of Exodus, beginning at the 
third verse. 

12. Again, he says : " Christian morahty was not 
that of a sect, a race, or a nation, but of universal 
man." 

And yet he teaches that the precepts of the deca- 
logue are, and always were, binding on all men. 

13. At page 145 we are told : " The resurrection 
of Jesus is the basis of Christianity ; it is the ground- 
work of the Christian doctrine of the immortality of 
the soul." 

That is all very true, except the italicizing of the 
word " Christian." This makes the whole sentence 



Errors of Authors, 5 

teach erroneously. It is true that the resurrection 
of Jesus is the basis of Christianity, and the ground- 
work of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. 
But it is also true that this was always the Christian 
doctrine, as well in the days of Abel and Isaiah as 
of Peter and Paul. Has the doctrine of the immor- 
tality of the soul been changed ? 

14. Macknight (^Epistles^ p. 20) says : " It is the 
Apostle Paul, chiefly, who, by proving the principal 
doctrines of the gospel from the writings of Moses 
and the prophets, hath shown that the same God 
who spake to the fathers by the prophets, did in the 
last days speak by the Son." 

That sentence is rendered very defective by the 
insertion of the word " principal." Paul did not 
thus prove the principal do*ctrines of the gospel, but 
every one — every one, without exception, and so 
repeatedly it was declared by himself. Which one 
did he not prove from the writings of Moses and the 
prophets ? 

15. Dr. Clarke tells us, in his Preface to the Gos- 
pel of Matthew, that, " The term New Covenant, as 
used here, seems to mean that grand plan of arrange- 
ment or reconciliation which God made between 
Himself and mankind, by the death of Jesus Christ, 
in consequence of which all those who truly repent 
and unfeignedly beheve in the great atoning sacri- 
fice, are justified from their sins and united to God." 

I think this fails as a particular definition, for the 
reason that, most undoubtedly, thousands of years 
before this, there existed a great plan of arrangement 
or reconcihation which God made between Himself 
and mankind, by the death of Jesus Christ, in conse- 
quence of which aU those who truly repent and un- 



6 The City of God, 

feignedly believe in the great atoning sacrifice, are 
justified from their sins -and united to God. This, 
and nothing more nor less, is the precise condition of 
salvation, written in a hundred places, in various 
forms of expression, all through the Old Testament. 
And it is unquestionable, also, that many in Old 
Testament times were actually saved under these 
conditions. 

16. Dr. Clarke says : " The Jews were the first 
and most inveterate enemies the Christians had." 

No ; not the Jews, but Jews ; for it is also cer- 
tain that Jews were the first and most pious and 
heroic friends the Christians had. For about ten 
years after the death of Christ, until the preaching 
to Cornelius, the entire Apostohc Church — as we 
call the Church at that time, apostles and all — were 
all Jews. By this time, those who acknowledged 
Jesus as Christ must have amounted to many thou- 
sands, and were spread almost over the known world. 

17. Buck's Bictionary says : " Christ was despised 
and hated by the Jews without a cause." 

This expression conveys a very incorrect idea ; 
and it has been so very frequently repeated, by so 
many, and in so many forms of expression, that it 
has become a commonplace and a settled matter 
with many, to the great injury of Biblical truth. The 
simple truth is that many, and for a very short time 
perhaps most of the haters of Christ, were Jews ; 
but it is also true, that at the same time all the 
friends and followers of Christ were also Jews. And 
it is also certain that these Jews, so faithfully and 
heroically devoted to the cause of Christ, were num- 
bered by their three thousands, and five thousands, 
and multitudes, great multitudes, often repeated, 



Errors of Authors, 7 

and by countless myriads all over the land. So that 
the Jews were never haters of Christ. 

Let any one look carefully into the New Testa- 
ment, and he will find that in every place where the 
Jews are spoken of, as opposed to the person or 
teachings of Chi'ist, it never refers to the Jewish 
people at large. In a few places it refers to the 
nation or government, that is, to the Sanhedrim, or 
officials ; but mostly it refers locally to certain or 
a very few Jews who chanced to be there present, 
where some local occurrence is narrated. Now ex- 
amine every place carefully. 

18. In JahvbS Biblical Archceology^ p. 390, we 
read of " the conversion of the Jews to the Christian 
system." And in very many other places in this 
and many other books it is clearly supposed that 
the Jews, as such, needed to be converted to some 
other system, or religion, called Christianity. 

The reply is, that there is no such other rehgion 
as is supposed known to divine revelation. 1st. 
There is no doctrine of rehgion — no, nor not even a 
rule of morals — in the New Testament that is not 
in the Old. They are only more fully explained 
and elaborated in the New. 2d. The Jews, before 
the apostasy of such as did apostatize after the death 
of Jesus, and indeed those who remained in the 
Church — and to the present day, all of us — needed 
instruction in their religion, and a more close con- 
formity to it, but certainly not conversion from it. 
How can anybody be converted from divine revela-. 
tion ? The apostate Jews, like any other apostates, 
need to be converted from their apostasy to their 
former faith. But do pious men need conversion? 
.They need more enlightenment, but they are already 



8 The City of God, 

converted. Many millions of the most pious as well 
as the most wicked men that ever lived were Jews. 

A misuse of the word remnant^ as seen in Rom. 
ix. 27, xi. 5, has had a strong tendency to mislead 
or confirm the misleadings of many, " A remnant 
shall be saved," is understood to mean a very small 
portion, a very few, as compared with the whole. 
The Jews, therefore, who were not cut off through 
imbehef , were but the smallest fraction of the whole. 
And so Burkitt says, " The greatest number of these 
would be passed by for their unbelief, and a remnant 
Only be saved." But this reading very mdely mis- 
apprehends the meaning of the word remnant. Rem- 
nant means the portion which remains after a part 
has been removed. But it has no more signification 
of a small than of a large portion. The remnant of 
anything may be one fourth, or one half, or nine 
tenths of the former whole. This is the proper mean- 
ing of the word. It is used about seventy times in 
the Old Testament. I readily acknowledge, however, 
that remnant is frequently used in, the Old Testa- 
ment to mean a small portion ; and even if that were 
the meaning in the texts quoted from the prophets 
as above, it would not relieve the difficulty. The 
reference is to the destruction of Jerusalem, and it is" 
certain that the number who fled and escaped that 
destruction was quite small as compared with the 
number of unbeheving Jews who perished. Most of 
the Christian Jews are not taken into this account 
at all, because they had already, some time before, 
left the city. 

19. Lord King, formerly High Chancellor of Eng- 
land, and author of a most excellent ecclesiastical 
classic, calls his work " An Inquiry into the Consti* 



Errors of Authors, 9 

tution, Discipline, Unity, and Worship of the Primi- 
tive Church, that flourished within the first three 
hundred years after Christ." 

This most valuable work, which is made up en- 
tirely of laborious historical research, is an argument 
going to prove that its title, " Primitive Church," 
is a misnomer. Primitive means first, original, be- 
ginning. And if the history of the Church in that 
period be correctly stated, then, beyond all question, 
it was not first, original, nor beginning, but was, as 
Mr. Richard Watson, in making the same kind of 
an argument, says it was, " the very same that was 
before the coming of Christ." The extensive repub- 
lication of Lord King's book, and polemical use of it 
by Methodist and other presbyterial writers, is to 
show that the Christian Church, after Christ, was by 
no means primitive ; that, as Mr. Watson says, " the 
Christian Church is not another, but the very same," 
which was previously called Jewish. 

20v Dr. Bangs writes a most valuable treatise, 
proving, by many forms of argument, that no form 
of Church government was prescribed to the Church 
at the time of the Christian era ; that is, that a 
Church was not then made, but that the one Church 
continued uninterruptedly. And then he makes a 
most fatal admission against his whole argument, 
which otherwise would be an unanswerable one, by 
calling his book " An Original Church of Christ." 
Both things cannot possibly be true. 

21. Dr. Clarke frequently speaks of the Jews, at 
and before the coming of Christ, as though they 
were not Christians, but the rehgious opponents of 
Christians. 

If any one doubts that this is a mistake, I ask 



10 The City of God. 

him, first, Did they hold the Old Testament as 
Scripture, and confess its faith? Second, Does the 
Old Testament contain or tolerate any religious doc- 
trine, precept, or sentiment, which is not wholly 
based on, and inherent in, our Saviour Jesus Christ, 
as He is presented in all the Scriptures ? Then what 
is a Christian ? 

22. " For the law was given by Moses, but grace 
and truth came by Jesus Christ." (John i. 17.) 

This is oftentimes misunderstood. These two 
states of things have no relation to the order of time, 
but to the natural order of sequence, the beginning 
and development of religious principles in the soul. 
To suppose the two things chronologically related, 
would imply that during four thousand years salva- 
tion was offered upon conditions utterly impractica- 
ble, ^. e., was not offered at all ; and that afterward 
God became merciful and offered salvation by free 
grace. Salvation was always offered on the same 
conditions. 

23. " For the original faith of the Christian 
Church, the Scriptures of the New Testament, are 
certainly the only competent authority." (^Ruter^s 
Gregory^ p. 24.) 

By the original faith, I suppose, is meant the faith 
actually entertained by Christians in the early min- 
istry of the apostles. And it will be remembered 
that the faith of these persons was taught them, ex- 
plained to them, and inculcated exclusively by argu- 
ments and considerations drawn from the writings of 
the Old Testament. Then, while that faith is more 
fully and elaborately explained in the New than in 
the Old Testament, it cannot be said that the latter 
is absolutely incompetent to describe it, since, as 



Errors of Authors. 11 

above intimated, it was once taught and described 
exclusively from these writings. 

24. " From the very first, therefore, we find in 
the Church of Christ a regular chain of authority 
and subordination." (^Buter's Gregory/.') 

First of what ? I inquire. He alludes to the min- 
istry of the apostles and of the seventy. But surely 
no one will say that Isaiah did not minister in the 
regular Church of Christ. Then, I repeat, how was 
it first, at a period several hundred years later ? 

25. " For if the several books differ, the difference 
is in precise agreement with the known circum- 
stances of the authors ; whilst in every respect the 
peculiarities prove that the writers of them were 
what they professed to be ^ Jews converted to 
Christianity." (^Smith's Elements^ p. 31.) 

The objection I make here is, that there was never 
any such confession as is here stated, nor, indeed, was 
there any such conversion. Of the most of these 
writers there is, in the historic Scriptures, not the 
least intimation about their conversion. The infer- 
ence is, therefore, that they were converted before 
they became acquainted with the Saviour. And I 
know of no conversion which a pious man needs. 
Paul was converted afterward, but he was converted 
to the written religion of his own Scriptures, which 
he had for several years so misunderstood. 

26. "Inmost of the early Christian communities 
a portion of the Church had been Jews by birth." 
{Conyheare and Howson^s St. Paul.') 

So far from this being a correct description of the 
times, it is true that for about eight or ten years 
after the crucifixion — until the preaching to Cor- 
nelius — not only a portion, but all the members of 



12 The City of God, 

the Church, without a single exception, who acknowl- 
edged the Christship of Jesus, not only had been Jews, 
but continued to be Jews so long as they lived. 
Certainly, in that period at least, all the Christians 
were Jews ; and so far from their ceasing to be Jews, 
the only way they could possibly continue to be Jews 
was to confess Christ according to the Scriptures. 
Those who denied Christ ceased to be Jews — true 
Jews. They called themselves Jews, but did lie. 
(Rev. iii. 9, ii. 9, and other places.) 

27. " The Jewish behevers had renounced the 
righteousness of the* law." (^Conyheare and How- 
son.) 

Then they were apostates from the divine faith. 
How can revealed religion require a renunciation of 
some righteousness, revealed in Scripture, or of any- 
thing revealed ? I know of no apostasy that does 
not consist in a renunciation of something revealed ; 
nor can I conceive of a renunciation of anything re- 
vealed that is not apostasy. 

28. " The festival of the Passover was instituted 
for the purpose of preserving among the Hebrews 
the memory of their liberation from Egyptian servi- 
tude, and the safety of their first-born on that night 
when the first-born of the Egyptians perished." 
(Jahn's Biblical Arehceology .') 

There is no doubt that the first and most primary 
and immediate object of the Passover was as is here 
stated. But it is equally clear that its great object 
was to teach typically and symbolically the doctrine 
of our great Passover, the Shiloh to come. And in 
the third place, the Passover was, and still is, one of 
the two sacraments of religion. But to denominate 
the Passover a festival merely, is to overlook the 



Errors of Authors. 13 

thing itself, and have regard only to the mere form 
of exhibiting it. It was celebrated in a festive man- 
ner, it is true, but the thing itseK is a sacrament. 
The same sacrament, performed in a different mode, 
is in the Church now. 

29. " His blood be upon us and our children." 
(Matt, xxvii. 25.) Dr. Kitto, speaking of the de- 
struction of Jerusalem, says : " Thus was inflicted 
the doom which was impiously invoked when the 
inhabitants of Jerusalem cried out, ' His blood be 
upon us and our children.' " 

And when did the inhabitants of Jerusalem cry in 
that manner ? Some attribute the expression to the 
whole Jewish people. The simple facts are in a nut- 
shell. A few priests and officials, members of the 
Sanhedrim, not the people, were urging the convic- 
tion of Jesus before Pilate, in or around the door 
of his court-room, where it was physically impossible 
there could have been more than few — perhaps 
twenty, or fifty, or so — present, in the hearing of 
the governor, and participating in the trial. They, 
these priests, officers, and the little rabble around 
them, cried, " His blood," etc. But there is no pre- 
tense that they spoke on the behalf of any but them- 
selves. Indeed, the whole history shows plainly that 
the great mass of the Jewish people of the city were 
very much in favor of Christ, and strongly inclined 
to favor his Messiahship. And the trial and execu- 
tion were hurried forward very precipitately for fear 
of the people. 

30. Dr. Kitto says of the people he calls Jews, 
forty years after the death of Christ, that "they 
were ready in crowds to rally round the standard of 
their ancient faith." 



14 The City of aod. 

He is under a great mistake. The people who at 
this period were ready to rally round the standard of 
their ancient faith were now called Christians. They 
began to be called Christians at Antioch, several 
years before this time ; and the people who at that 
time were called Jews were a part of the former 
Jewish Church, who apostatized from its reUgion, 
a^id who then and now hold a very different religion 
from their ancient faith. 

31. Dr. Taylor — quoted by 'Dr. Clarke — para- 
phrases Rom. ix. 27, thus : " But a small remnant 
of the Jews shall be taken into the Church." 

In this short sentence there are two manifest and 
very important errors. The first is, in considering 
the remnant small — small as compared with the 
other portion. The word remnant does not always 
inaply that the remaining portion js either smaller or 
larger than the other portion which was taken away. 
Remnant means that which remains, be it much or 
little, after a portion, much or little, has been re- 
moved. And in very many places in the first ten or 
twelve chapters of Acts, and elsewhere, it is stated 
and unmistakably explained, that the Jews who re- 
mained true to Christ were " thousands," and " mul- 
titudes," oft repeated, and "many ten thousands," 
meaning myriads ; but what proportion of the whole, 
is not particularly stated. 

The second error is in supposing that this re- 
maining portion had to be taken into the Church. 
Taken into what Church ? Were they not already 
in the Church ? Are we not told almost everywhere, 
in and out of the pulpit, that there was never but 
one Church and one religion ? Are we not a thou- 
sand times taught that the one Church which was 



Errors of Authors, 15 

instituted at an early period, continued uninterrupt- 
edly to the present day? And likewise, that the one 
true religion was uninterruptedly continued ? 

Now, it is the one way or the other. It cannot be 
both ways. If the men of true religion and true 
faith who held firmly to their principles and the true 
Church had to be taken into the Church again, or 
into some other Church, then be it so. And if they 
were already in the Church, and did not leave it, 
but remained in it, holding firmly to its faith, then 
be it that way. 

If Drs. Clarke and Taylor are right, then Paul 
and his coadjutors are wrong. The case is a plain 
one, and leaves no room for argument except as be- 
tween these parties. 

32. Dr. Abel Stevens says that one of the reasons 
why the Saviour and the apostles frequented the 
synagogues in their ministry was, "because it al- 
lowed them considerable freedom of speech, by which 
they could address their new doctrines to the people." 

I ask, What new doctrines ? The point is impor- 
tant. There is a sense in which the above statement 
is true, but I do not know whether that was or was 
not the Doctor's meaning. The doctrines preached 
by the apostles were new to many who heard, just as 
the same doctrines we preach now are new to many 
who hear, and who are ignorant of the doctrines they 
nominally profess. But they were certainly not new 
to the Church — new to religion. There is not a 
doctrine in the New Testament, nor was there one 
taught by the apostles, which they did not find in, 
and teach out of, the Old Testament. 

And the Doctor himself says, that they always 
found in the synagogues " the Old Testament Scrip- 



16 The City of God. 

tures, by the reading and exposition of which they 
could prove their doctrines." That is exactly right. 
They proved every doctrine they preached by the 
reading and exposition of the Old Testament. 

33. Stillingfleet verges so closely upon the truth 
as almost to touch it : " We have the same orders 
for prayers, reading the Scriptures according to occa- 
sion, and sermons made out of them for increase of 
faith, raismg hope, and strengthening confidence. 
We have the discipline of the Church answering the 
admonitions and excommunications of the synagogue. 
And laSt of all, we have the bench of elders sitting in 
the assemblies, and ordering the things belonging to 
them." 

Or, in fewer words, we have the same identical, 
continuous, unchanged Church. The Church relates 
to the two periods, before and after the coining of 
Christ, just as it relates to any other two periods. 

34. Schaff, in his History of the Apostolic Churchy 
tells us that " Christianity at the first had to sustain 
a mighty conflict with Judaism and heathenism." 
(Page 39.) 

Now, it is matter of moment to inquire what this 
false and wicked thing is which held such a mighty 
conflict with true religion. Schaff gives us this infor- 
mation on page 139, when treating ^on a differing 
point : — 

" Judaism is the religion of positive, direct revela- 
tion, in word and action ; a communication not only 
of divine doctrine, but also of divine life." 

Then how could Christianity have a conflict with 
revelation ? Surely there can be no conflict between 
divine doctrine and divine life on the one hand, and 
Christianity on the other. 



Errors of Authors. 17 

35. Coleman's Biblical Atlas, speaking of Paul, 
says : " Toward the Christians, as a new religious 
sect, apostates from the faith, regardless of the law 
and the sacred institutions of Moses, he entertains 
the most implacable hatred. As the new religion 
spreads, and gathers daily fresh accessions, his zeal 
for his religion rises to the most ungovernable fury 
against the new sect." 

Now it is matter of very considerable importance 
in Biblical theology, which was the new sect — which 
set up the new reHgion — the followers of Christ, or 
the Jews who denied EQm ? That one or the other 
did, is very certain. A short time previously they 
were all together, in one Church, in one common 
fellowship, and all professing the same religion. 
And now they are separate, widely separate, in dif- 
ferent and opposing churches, with different and op- 
posing religions, and are indeed very hostile to each 
other. 

So it is certain that either one or both abandoned 
their old religion and the old Church. Now, which 
were the apostates ? Mr. Coleman says the Chris- 
tians are the apostates, that they set up the new re- 
ligion. And it is certain the rejecting Jews charged 
this boldly upon them. It is, however, a question 
stoutly held, on this side and on that, to this day. 

Now, how are you going to determine ? I answer, 
with the simplest and most infalhble certainty. If 
Jesus was the Christ, then the rejecting Jews apos- 
tatized ; and if He was not, then Mr. Coleman, and 
I would not Hke to say how many more with him, 
are correct, and Christianity is a falsehood and an 
apostasy. 

Mr. Coleman teUs us plainly that the Christians 



18 The City of God. 

did repudiate utterly and wholly the Old Testament, 
its teachings, its morals, and its religion. Listen 
again ; " The Christians, as a new rehgious sect, 
apostates from the faith, regardless of the law and 
the sacred institutions of Moses " — 

No apostate Jew, in denying Christ, ever said or 
need say more than that against Christianity. No 
one ever held, or attempted to hold, more than that 
in order J:o prove modern Judaism the true, and 
Christianity a false, religion. Indeed, I can con- 
ceive of no facts which would more conclusively prove 
Christianity to be Jieresy, and modern Judaism to be 
the true faith of God. Brethren ! Christian breth- 
ren ! these errors must be arrested. 

Now, if that argument can be jostled, then we 
have no farther use for human logic nor human 
reason. 

36. Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, is fre- 
quently spoken of as the Founder of our rehgion. 
This is most certainly true ; but in what sense is it 
to be understood ? Certainly not in the sense that 
eighteen hundred years ago He set up, estabhshed, 
ordained, originated, or founded a system or some 
doctrines of religion. This He did not do. He is 
the founder of Christianity in the sense that, as the 
Jehovah, the Omnipotent, He is the maker and 
founder of all things. He is the foundej- of re- 
ligion in the sense that, in the days of Adam, He 
revealed to mankind the Christian religion, which 
system of recovering grace and salvation from sin 
was taught from time to time to man, by farther 
and still farther revelations, the whole closing with 
the teachings of the apostles ; but in no other sense. 

37. " The belief in a future state may be said to 



Errors of Authors, 19 

have been an open question among the Jews when 
our Lord appeared." (^Conyheare and Howson's St, 
Paul,) 

Yes, it might perhaps be called an open question, 
but just precisely as it is an open question now with 
us. Then, as now, it was a closed question so far 
as the religion of the Church was concerned. But, 
as is the case now, there were then persons who did 
not understand the Scriptures in this as well as other 
respects. 

38. '' Such were the Pharisees. And now, before 
proceeding to other features of Judaism, and their 
relation to the Church, we can hardly help glancing 
at St. Paul." {Ihid,) 

Here it is strangely assumed that the rehgious 
errors of some or all of the Pharisees were a feature 
of Judaism. Just exactly in the same sense it might 
now be said that the religious errors of some Univer- 
salists, for instance, are a feature of Christianity. 

39. " The odium incurred by adopting the new 
doctrine might undermine the livelihood of some who 
depended on their trade for support " (referring to 
Paul). (Ibid,) 

There was no new doctrine adopted in those days 
by anybody, so far as we read, except by the un- 
believing Jews. Paul was thus often accused by 
his enemies of adopting a new doctrine ; but he 
stoutly denied it everywhere, on all occasions. And 
it is remarkably strange indeed, that his panegyrists 
now should suggest, or rather indeed affirm, the 
same thing of him which he himself so loudly com- 
plained of then, as a false and injurious accusa- 
tion. 

40. " First the Samaritans, and then the Gentiles, 



20 The City of God. 

received that gospel which the Jews attempted to 
destroy." (^Ihid. p. 79.) 

The propriety of that statement may be judged 
of from the unquestionable fact, that at the time it 
is located (Acts viii. 1), and for several years there- 
after, the entire Church in association with the 
apostles — call it by what name you will, amount- 
ing most certainly to many thousands — was com- 
posed exclusively of Jews, without a single excep- 
tion. 

Nevertheless, it is true that Jews, some Jews, were 
attempting to destroy it. At that time the contest 
was among Jews exclusively, Jews on the one side, 
and Jews on the other. 

41. " The festivals observed by the Apostolic 
Church were at the first the same as those with the 
Jews." Qhid. p. 440.) 

And when, and by what authority, were they 
changed? Excepting those which obviously and 
naturally belonged to the period before Christ's 
appearance, they were never changed, but remain to 
this day, saving incidental modifications, such as 
always occur from time to time. 

42. " It appears that they remained some con- 
siderable time at Antioch, gradually insinuating, or 
openly inculcating, their opinion that the observance 
of the Jewish law was necessary to salvation." (^Ihid, 
p. 210.) 

I understand the very reverse. The reference is 
to the false brethren mentioned in Gal. ii. 4. They 
Bought to inculcate, not the observance of the Jewish 
law, but a departure from it. The Jewish law, or 
the Old Testament, as is here meant, restricts cir- 
cumcision to the period before Christ, as fully ex- 



Errors of Authors. 21 

plained heretofore. And these false brethren wanted 
to continue it afterward, as though Christ had not 
come. 

Surely that was violating the Old Testament pro- 
vision. And Paul wanted to conform to it by dis- 
continuing that ceremony. 

43. " They " (the Christians) " were a new and 
singular party in the nation, holding pecuhar opin- 
ions, and interpreting the Scriptures in a peculiar 
way." {Ibid. p. 67.) 

They were the regular Church party, interpreting 
the Scriptures correctly, for they had the Saviour 
and the apostles to assist them in doing so, if that 
can be called peculiar. They interpreted them just 
as everybody did who did it properly. As to the 
nation, most of the officials, who in those days were 
generally spoken of as the nation, interpreted the 
Scriptures so peculiarly as to carry themselves, and 
many others with them, out of the Church> 

44. " All parties in the nation united to oppose, 
and if possible to crush, the monstrous heresy " (^. «., 
the Christians). (^Ibid. p. 67.) 

No, sir ! there was one party who did not oppose 
them. And what party was that ? The true Jews, 
who held firmly to their rehgion, and who alone for 
several years constituted the entire Church under the 
ministry of the apostles. 

45. " We can imagine Saul, then the foremost in 
the Cilician synagogue, disputing against the new 
doctrines of the Hellenistic Deacon." (^Ihid.') 

What would the reader generally understand by 
the word new., in the above sentence ? Not probably 
what is really true. The doctrines preached by 
Stephen were certainly not new to the Church, to 



22 The City of God. 

religion, to those who understood the doctrines of the 
Church, to those who looked for no other Christ than 
Jesus, for it seems He was the Christ of their old re- 
ligion ; though they were regarded as new by such 
novices and mistaken men in reUgion as Saul. Men 
who looked for some other Christ, and repudiated 
Jesus, would certainly regard Stephen's preaching as 
new. Such preaching would be regarded as new by 
such persons now. But if Stephen's preaching was 
really new, new to the settled religion of the Church, 
then it was necessarily false for that very reason, and 
ought to have been disputed against. All new reKg- 
ion is necessarily false. 

And then Stephen himself declares, and argues at 
length, that his doctrines were not new. He proves, 
or certainly attempts to prove, every doctrine and 
every sentiment he advances, by reference to the then 
existing Scriptures, the Old Testament. (Read the 
seventh chapter of Acts.) 

46. " The modern Jews still adhere as closely to 
the Mosaic dispensation as their dispersed and despised 
condition will permit them." (^Religious Ency.^ p. 
692.) 

Then it is logically and infallibly certain that 
theirs is the true religion, and Christianity is a heresy. 
It is hard to hold our patience under such monstrous 
teaching. 

If Jesus is the true and identical Christ of the 
" Mosaic dispensation," using that expression as the 
writer does, then no condition in life, dispersed or 
despised, will authorize, much less necessitate, his re- 
jection. To reject Christ, Jesus Christ, He being 
the Christ of the Mosaic dispensation, is, most cer- 
tainly and palpably, to reject all the rehgion of that 



Errors of Authors, 23 

dispensation. Will any man say that the Old Tes- 
tament contains any religion with its Christ wholly 
excluded ? 

47. " The Jews had such an opinion of this 
prophet's sanctity, that they ascribed the overthrow 
of Herod's army, which he had sent against his father- 
in-law, Aretas, to the just judgment of God for put- 
ting John the Baptist to death." (^Relig. Ency.^ 

This is most certainly true and well stated. But 
then, how comes it that at this very time these same 
Jews were so violently opposed to these very princi- 
ples of rehgion, as is so repeatedly and unqualifiedly 
stated by this same writer and others ? Both things 
cannot be true. 

48. " Judaizing Christians — those who attempted 
to mingle Judaism and Christianity together." QHend. 
Buck's Dict.^ 

That is^ those who held that the Old Testament 
was Scripture, and mingled the common Scripture of 
revelation in the teachings of religion ! 

49. Macknight (Preface to Gal., p. 280) says that 
Christians are not bound at all by the precepts of 
the Old Testament. " But their obHgation to ab- 
stain from their vices doth not arise from their having 
been forbidden to the Israelites and proselytes by 
Moses, but from their being expressly forbidden by 
Chi-ist and his apostles. At the death of Christ the 
law of Moses was abolished in all its parts, to all 
mankind, as a rehgious institution." 

And again, on Col. ii. 14, he explains, in the most 
unquaUfied language, that we are not bound by any- 
thing written in the Old Testament ; but to whatever 
laws or precepts we are bound, it is exclusively be- 
cause we find them written in the New. 



24 The City of Qod, 

Well, as this issue lies fairly between Dr. Mac- 
knight and the apostles, I shall certainly not interfere 
with any feeble views of my own. It is very certain 
that the apostles, as well as the Saviour himself be- 
fore them, urged every duty they enjoined, and en- 
forced every precept they advanced, on the sole and 
exclusive ground that that was the written law of 
religion in the Old Testament. 

50. Mr. Coleman says : " In the Old Testament 
everything relating to the kingdom of God was esti- 
mated by outward forms, and promoted by specific 
external rites. In the New everything is made to 
depend upon what is internal and spiritual." 

I cannot account for such language. As a simple 
matter of fact, it is notoriously true, and questioned 
neither by Mr. Coleman nor anybody else, that the 
Old Testament estimates no rehgious principle nor 
duty by outward forms, but that internal and spirit- 
ual graces, emotions, and feelings, are enjoined every- 
where therein, and that it never offers salvation on 
any other conditions. In these respects there is no 
difference whatever between the Old Testament and 
the New. 

51. Dr. Abel Stevens {Eut. Meth., yo\. i. p. 17) 
says : " For generations the primitive Christians had 
no temples, but worshipped with familiar simplicity 
in private houses or in the synagogues of converted 
Jews, which were scattered over the Roman Empire." 

In the synagogues of converted Jews ? Why, my 
dear sir, they were the very Jews themselves, who, 
like anybody else, worshipped in their own synagogues, 
as churches were then generally called, where they 
and their fathers had always worshipped. They aU 
continued to worship where and as they had always 



Errors of Authors. 25 

done, except the rejecting Jews, who went out of the 
Church. They had to go somewhere else and wor- 
ship, unless they could coj^vert the whole synagogue, 
or the majority of it, to their heresy, which they 
frequently did. 

52. I am not able to see either the force or the 
propriety of Keith's reply to Celsus, where the Epi- 
curean philosopher undei*takes to ridicule the doctrine 
of morals as put forth by our Savioui-, when He said, 
" Whoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn 
to him the other also." Keith refers it to his " igno- 
rance of, the difference between the dispensations of 
the law and the gospel." 

After claiming to know at least as much about 
the law and the gospel as a heathen philosopher 
could be reasonably expected to know, I confess my- 
self, with Celsus, quite ignorant of any such dif- 
ference as Keith supposes. So far as I am able to 
read, the Saviour had no reference to any difference 
between dispensations. He merely explained and 
repeated the law as it was and is, but not as the mis- 
taken men around him understood it. 

53. Olshausen (Preface, p. 37) says : " They re- 
marked rightly that in the Old Testament the 
divine justice was most prominently exhibited in the 
revelation of a rigorous law; while the New most 
fully displayed the divine mercy in the revelation of 
a forgiving love." 

All that is mere fashionable theological rhetoric, 
which some learned men think they have a right to 
indulge in, and possibly some of them do not know 
any better ; but surely men who will reflect a mo- 
ment, can but see that there is not a word of truth in 
it. There is no divine justice nor rigorous law re- 



26 The City of aod. 

vealed in the Old Testament, and not explained and 
commented on in the revelations of the New Testa- 
ment ; nor is there any divine mercy, nor forgiving 
love, in the New Testament not revealed in the 
Old. If there are, they can be specified. 

54. Olshausen opens his Introduction to his Com- 
mentary on the New Testament with this remarka- 
ble declaration : — 

" As the revelations of God to man assume two 
principal forms, namely, the law and the gospel ; so 
the Scriptures are 'divided into two parts, of which 
the first relates to God's covenant with man in the 
law, the second to the covenant in grace.^^ 

I confess I do not know what to make of such 
a declaration. Its meaning is seemingly plain and 
unmistaka,ble ; and as to the principal fact stated, 
everybody half informed must know it to be wholly 
untrue. It is impossible the author can mean what 
he so plainly states. 

There is no mistaking what is meant by God's 
covenant with man in the law. There need be no 
debate where there is nothing debatable. There are 
some things about the Scriptures which everybody 
knows. The Scriptures set forth two entirely differ- 
ent systems of divine administration with man. The 
first regards him merely as an intelligent moral 
being, a subject of moral control, and it supposes 
him to obey promptly and precisely all God's rules 
of conduct. This is the law — preeminently the 
LAW. Nor is there anything else in Scripture which 
without express or implied qualification can be so 
called. It says, " Do these things, and you shall 
live by them." This would give the highest possi- 
ble happin'ess to man, regarding him as a mere.moraJ 



Errors of Authors, 27 

and intelligent agent. And it is all the rule there 
ever ought to have been, because there ought not to 
have been a necessity for any other. 

But alas ! there v^as. Man became a sinner as 
well as a free, inteUigent moral agent. And novr, 
what ? Why, one of two things is inevitable : either 
a gospel, a system of grace, or total and inevitable 
ruin. God in his mercy ordained the former, and so 
provided a Saviour and a system of salvation, not 
mere happiness, by faith. This system is called the 
gospel, and most appropriately is it named. 

And now we are told that the Old Testament re- 
veals the former, and the New Testament the latter, 
and that this is their Scriptural relation. 

No, it is not so ; they have no such relation. A 
more palpable error could not be stated. Every- 
body knows that the Saviour, the system of grace, 
the being saved from sin by and through Christ, 
salvation, was introduced into the world thousands 
of years before the New Testament had an existence. 
And I present the open Old Testament in proof 
that the system of grace is offered in it to all man- 
kind in perhaps a thousand places. And it is well 
known that by and in this covenant of grace, a 
good many persons, or at least some, were actually 
saved. 

The simple truth is, that the two systems, Law 
and Grace, are contained in both Testaments, and 
all over both everywhere ; at least, both relate to 
both. 

Moreover, it is known to all theologians that not 
only is this the case with the written Scriptures, but 
that the very person of the Saviour appeared in dif- 
ferent kinds of manifestation, occasionally, to the 



28 The City of God, 

Old Testament saints. That our Saviour began to 
exist about eighteen hundred years ago, and that 
then, and not till then, the covenant of grace began 
to operate, is a mythical, mystical, fashionable fable, 
which, though perhaps taught in, is disbelieved by, 
every Sunday-school in the land. And why such 
doctrine is tolerated in the books, is a strange thing 
to me. 

55. The objection raised against the apostles and 
their followers, and the only objection I know of in 
these times or ever, was, that their religion was new, 
and therefore false. This was the question. And 
on all hands it was, as it must have been, acknowl- 
edged, that the party who had the old religion had 
the true religion ; and those who had introduced 
new tenets, had, in the very necessities of the case, 
introduced false ones. That is to say, in other words, 
one party held that Jesus was Christ, according to 
the Old Testament Scriptures, and the other that He 
was not. And so each party charged the other with 
introducing a new religion, the one for receiving, and 
the other for rejecting, Jesus as Christ. 

And so we see Celsus, who was one of the first to 
put infidelity into logical form, take this same 
ground. " It is but a few years," he says, " since 
He who is now reckoned by the Christians to be the 
Son of God, delivered this doctrine." 

And a little later we hear Porphyry say :• " If 
Jesus Christ be the way of salvation, the truth and 
the life, and they only who believe in Him can be 
saved, what became of those men who lived before 
his coming ? " And you will see the same objec- 
tions, and indeed no others, raised by Tacitus, Trajan, 
Julian, etc. 



Errors of Authors. 29 

This is precisely what might be expected. But 
then it is strange indeed that Keith, in endeavoring 
to refute these very charges, should acknowledge 
that Jesus was " the author of the new religion of 
the Christians, ^^ 

Then the other party is right, and Christianity is 
false. 

66. Macknight (Gal. iii. 22) says the law of faith 
was " made known obscurely in. the first promise. 
Gen. iii. 15 ; and afterward in the covenant with 
Abraham." 

How does Macknight know that religion was com- 
municated to the world obscurely at the first ? This 
is drawing pretty heavily upon the imagination. 
There is not, I believe, the slightest intimation of 
such a thing in Scripture. And it would seem to 
require very strong proof to mduce one to believe 
that God would teach the conditions of salvation in 
an obscure way. Obscure means, as used here, not 
easily understood or made out ; not clear or legible ; 
abstruse or bhnd ; or dim and of uncertain meaning. 

Macknight mistakes the words of the historian for 
those of divine teaching. Gen. iii. 15, is what 
Moses tells us about the teaching. What the teach- 
ing itself was, in its actual details, is another thing. 
We are in the same condition here as in any other 
instance of exceeding brief, synoptic history. What 
occurred, is one thing ; how much the historian tells 
future generations about it, is quite another. Per- 
haps, in this instance, it was not necessary that very 
much should be explained to us about the religious 
teaching of those very distant ages. The religious 
teachings in the days of Adam might have been 
explained in eleven volumes, as well as in eleven 



30 The City of G-od. 

words ; or those of the present age might be alluded 
to in eleven words. 

57. Olshausen says of the Ebionites : " They de- 
nied the real divinity of our Lord, and regarded him 
as the son of Joseph ; thus seceding wholly from the 
true Church." (Vol. i. p. 37.) 

That is exactly right. Denying Christ is seced- 
ing from the Church. But then, why does not the 
writer apply tliis rule to the hundreds of thousands 
of Jews who a few years before did that very same 
thing ? By failing to assert their secession from the 
Church, Olshausen runs into the dilemma of suppos- 
ing and admitting that the apostles and their follow- 
ers left the Church. The apostles affirmed that Jesus 
is the Christ, and the other party of Jews denied 
Him. Then, which party left the Church ? 

58. Mr. Henry (Gal. ii. 4) speaks of the two 
different modes of salvation as " by the works of 
the law, or by the faith of Christ." 

The evident drift and meaning of his teaching is, 
that back yonder a few years, the former was the 
mode of salvation ; and now, the latter is the rule 
which was recently adopted by Christ. And if this 
be the way commentators teach, what may be ex- 
pected of us learners ? 

59. On Gal. v. 1, Mr. Henry says : " Since, then, 
we can be justified only by faith in Christ, and not 
by the righteousness of the law ; and that the law of 
Moses was no longer in force, nor Christians under 
any obligations to submit to it ; therefore he would 
have them to stand fast in the Uberty wherewith 
Christ hath made us free," etc. 

I ask Mr. Henry if any persons were ever justi- 
fied in any other way, or on any other conditions, 



Errors of Authors. 31 

than by faith in Christ ? And again I ask, if any 
law of Moses, or any other divine law, was ever 
in force, and not now in force ? And again : Was 
ever anybody under any obligations to submit to 
any divine law which is not now binding on all man- 
kind ? Paul says the righteousness of the law is ful- 
filled in us. 

Mr. Henry's mistake is the common one of sup- 
posing that the law, the inexorable law which says 
obey and live, stands related to the milder terms of 
the gospel, which says, believe in the Lord Jesus 
Christ, in the order of time ; that the one preceded 
the other chronologically. That is not the way of it : 
the two systems have no chronological relations. They 
relate to each other in the order of sequence. Our 
Saviour was just as much of a Saviour, and saved 
men in the same way, a thousand years before Mary 
had a son, as in the days of his flesh, or at this day. 
He never was anything short of the great Jehovah. 
His incarnation was a mere manifestation of the God- 
head to human senses. 

60. Mr. Henry, on Gal. iii. 24, says : " In the fore- 
going verse the Apostle acquaints us with the state 
of the Jews under the Mosaic economy; that be- 
fore faith came, or before Christ appeared, .... 
they were kept under the law." 

Here this great error about when faith came, or 
when the law ceased and the gospel began, is appar- 
ent. " In the foregoing verse the Apostle acquaints 
us with the state of the Jews under the Mosaic econ- 
omy." 

No ! Right there is the error. He makes no 
allusion to any chronological period whatever. In 
the twenty-third verse Paul acquaints us with the 



32 The City of aod, 

state of man, as man, without a gospel, that is, 
without a Saviour. He says : " Bat before faith 
came we were kept under the law." And now Mr. 
Henry tells us that before faith came means before 
Christ appeared. No, sir ! I understand it to mean 
precisely as it says — "before faith came." And 
when did faith come to man's rescue ? Ask Abel ; 
or ask Paul to ask him; or ask Abraham or the 
prophets. 

Before faith came we were under the inexorable 
law. But I beg pardon of Paul's interpreters, when 
they make him acquaint jis that this thing hap- 
pened to mankind about three years before he was 
converted. No ! that event happened four thousand 
years before Paul was bom. 

61. Dr. Lardner {^Credibility of the Grospel His- 
tory^ vol. i. p. 179) in speaking of Acts v. 26, where 
it is said of the officers who were sent to apprehend 
Peter and John, that they feared the people lest they 
should have been stoned, says : " This may seem a 
surprising change^ in the people, considering the 
eagerness with which they demanded that Christ 
should be crucified." 

I see no evidence whatever of any such change in 
the people as is here supposed, because I do not see 
that they, the people, demanded that Christ should 
be crucified. I see that the Jews — the government, 
the Sanhedrim, the officers, priests, Pharisees, and 
a few followers — demanded that Christ should be 
crucified. But the people were opposed to it. 
Moreover, there was no time for any such change to 
take place. The two things spoken of were in the 
same year, and hkely within a few weeks or months 
of each other. 



Errors of Authors. 33 

62. Dr. Eadie, in his most excellent Analysis, 
makes one siection as follows : '' Prophecies having 
special reference to the Gentiles as successors to the 
Jews in spiritual privilege." 

But in the Scriptures ranged under this caption, 
we do not see any allusion to any successors to 
Jews. We see scriptures which merely predict the 
universal spread of religion everywhere ; and of 
course the Church is always the successor of those 
who haVe just passed away.. Matt. xxi. 43 refers 
not to the Jewish people as a people, but to the per- 
sons to whom the Saviour was speaking, namely, 
the chief priest and elders. • 

63. Bloomfield says the word " trouble," in Gal. i. 
7, means " harass your minds vrith vain doubts 
whether the Mosaic law is to be retained in the 
gospel of Christ." 

I do not see how this can be possible. What can 
the learned Doctor mean by the Mosaic law, else 
than some or all of the doctrines of religion or rules 
of ethics written in the Old Testament? And all 
these are in the gospel of Christ. So he certainly 
does not mean the Mosaic law. 

His statement would be true if he had said the 
false teachings of the Mosaic law ; not what the 
Mosaic law was and is, but false teachings of what 
it was not. The question was, whether false teach- 
ers of the Scriptures should prevail, or how far they 
might prevail in inculcating, instead of the written 
law, that which it was not. Paul was not afraid the 
law of Moses would be received by Christians, for it 
was to do that he so incessantly labored. It was 
misrepresentations of the law he feared. 

64. The Rev. E. P. Murphy, D. D., of Kentucky, 



34 The City of God. 

in a sermon in Sermons for the College^ says : "Two 
methods of salvation have, at different times, been 

proposed to mankind The gospel proposes 

to save them in another method, and on peculiar 
terms ; it introduces a new idea — the principle of 
faith." 

Into such terrible extravagances unthinking Chris- 
tians are led by the notion of two religions, the 
Jewish and the Christian. And it passes, in Chris- 
tian lands and among Bible readers, for theology. 

65. Even Dr. Chalmers, who is so very seldom in 
error, speaks of " the purer morality of Christ," as 
coinpared Avith that of the Old Testament. 

But this cannot be so. No moraUty can be purer 
than revelation. The mind of God cannot be purer 
at one time than at another. The same Mind of im- 
maculate purity is the author of all the morahty 
revealed in all Scripture. In the New Testament 
morality is more widely elaborated than in the Old, 
that is the difference, 

66. " Are we not told in profane records that 
Christianity was first propagated in Judea ? " — 
meaning in the days of Pontius Pilate. (^KeitKs 
Evidences^ p. 174.) 

Yes, we are told so in profane records, i. g., by 
Tacitus, Pliny, Trajan, Julian, and others. This is 
precisely the charge brought against the Christians 
in those days, by all their enemies, that their religion 
was then first propagated; that it was new, and, 
therefore, false. And if the fact charged had been 
true, then their complaints would have been just, for 
a new religion must necessarily be false. 

But there are no other records than those of the 
enemies of Christianity and of mistaken theologians, 



Errors of Authors. 35 

which acknowledge the charge to be true, that the 
Christian faith was first propagated in those days. 
The divine records everywhere maintain that this 
faith is precisely that of the prophets of old. 

67. " Having given 3^011 a short ac(^ount of the 
sacraments of the Jemsh Church, I proceed to ob- 
serve that they have been superseded by the Chris- 
tian sacraments. This is plain with respect to the 
passover, for we have already seen that immediately 
after the celebration of it the Lord's Supper was in- 
stituted." (^Dick's Theology, p. 466.) 

I think the author misses the point clearly. There 
cannot be two sets of sacraments in human religion, 
because sacrament is the obhgation which rehgion 
imposes, and not a matter of changeable legislation, 
passover and the Lord's Supper were not two differ- 
ent sacraments, but two different modes of adminis- 
tering the same obligation. I see no sort of warrant 
in the language to justify the behef that " the Lord's 
Supper was instituted immediately after the celebra- 
tion of the passover." The book says the Lord's 
Supper was the passover. The thing then instituted 
was the Lord's Supper, not the sacrament. The na- 
ture of things required this change. The author fails 
to notice the very vdde distinction between the sacra- 
ment and the mode of administering it. 

68. "It appears to have been less from an intoler- 
ant disposition, than from a wish to please the Jews 
at all hazards, that Herod Agrippa persecuted the 
Christians." (^Kitto's History of Palestine, p. 397.) 

This persecution was that which arose on the death 
of Stephen. These two opposing parties, the per- 
secutors and the persecuted, were, therefore, at the 
first, all, and throughout nearly all, Jews. When 



36 The City -of God. 

this persecution began, and for several years after, 
every Christian was a Jew. Some others came into 
the Church, but not many, before the death of Herod ; 
but from the language here used by Dr. Kitto, the 
uninformed reader would suppose that the persecuted 
Christians were some different kind of people, and 
not Jews. 

69. In the beginning of the Preface to OwerCs 
Questions^ we read : " In the ancient temple service, 
under the Mosaic dispensation, there were various 
orders of priests, to each of which an allotment of 
duty was made ; and all of these, in their several 
spheres, bore an honorable part, because subservient 
to the great end for which that service was instituted. 
So, imder the Christian dispensation, 'the glory of 
which is greater than of the former,' there are divers 
ministrations, all of which are honorable, because pro- 
motive of the glory of God and of human weal. And, 
though all of those who perform these ministrations 
do not wear sacerdotal garments, or burn incense, or. 
enter the holy of holies with ' the Urim and Thum- 
mim,' and the breastplate of judgment, neverthe- 
less, they are recognized by the great Head of the 
Church," etc. 

From this language the Sunday-school scholar 
would infer that under the Mosaic dispensation, 
that is, before the time of Christ, the worship, as 
prescribed and practiced, was the temple service, 
as here described. And then, what will he do with 
this information when he comes to be informed that 
then, and for many hundred years previously, the 
worship of the people was indeed but very little of it 
in or near the temple, but was performed in congre- 
gations, as it is now, all over the city of Jerusalem, 
all over Palestine, and all over the known world ? 



Errors of Authors. 37 

The worship of those times, almost all of it, was 
in small congregations, as it is now ; and instead 
of its being performed in sacerdotal garments, burn- 
ing incense, entering the holy of holies, etc., it was 
performed almost precisely as our Sabbath service is 
now. Our Sunday-school books ought to teach more 
correctly. 

. 70. Macknight says : " It is the Apostle to the 
Gentiles who hath set the Sinai covenant, or law of 
Moses, in a proper light, by Showing that it was no 
method of justification." 

Secondly, therefore, " And beginning at Moses 
and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all 
the Scriptures," or law of Moses, how that there was 
no justification by its provisions ! 

71. Macknight (Preface to Hebrews) says : " And 
on all these considerations the unbelieving Jews 
were exhorted to forsake the law of Moses, and em- 
brace the gospel." 

And now we will see what Paul says about it. 
Paul said, "For the hope of Israel I am bound with 
this chain." And again : " I stand and am judged 
for the hope of the promise made of God unto our 
fathers. Unto which promise our twelve tribes 
instantly serving God," etc. And again it is said. 
Search the Scriptures, the Old Testament, if you 
wish to know what Christianity is. 

72. Macknight (Preface to Hebrews) says : " Most 
of the Jews adhered to the law of Moses with the 
greatest obstinacy, because God had spoken it at 
Sinai by the ministry of angels, in the hearing of 
their fathers, accompanied with great thunders and 
lightnings, and tempest, and darkness." 

Most devoutly might it be wished that this were 



38 The City of aod. 

true ; and not ^nly that most, but that all had 
done so. Certainly the reason assigned is the very 
best that could be. Show that God has spoken it, 
and very few Christians will wish to inquire any 
farther. 

73. Dr. Belcher says the twelfth Article of the 
faith of modern Jews is, " that the Messiah is to 
come, though He tarry long." And again, that " the 
modern Jews adhere as closely to the Mosaic dis- 
pensation as their present dispersed condition will 
allow." 

Both these things cannot be true, because the 
Mosaic dispensation, i. g., its rehgion, declares Jesus 
Christ to be the Messiah. Then, supposing this 
to be true, it follows that, to hold that Messiah is 
to come, is to depart as widely from the Mosaic 
dispensation as it is possible for any one in any 
condition, dispersed or otherwise. The modern Jew 
departs wholly and fundamentally from all the re- 
ligious faith of the Old Testament, because the Old 
Testament teaches no religious faith save in Jesus 
Christ. 

74. Dr. Stuart, in his essay on the Peculiarities 
of Christianity^ among other statements somewhat 
similar, says our Saviour was to " entirely change 
the whole face of the Jewish religion ; " and that 
" He proposed to teach a new rehgion." 

By the Jewish religion I presume he intends to 
be understood the official, written, estabhshed relig- 
ion of the Church at that time. Or perhaps he 
would include in the word rehgion the actual external 
worship practiced at that time. In either view, was 
it entirely changed ? Was it changed generally ? 
Was it changed at all, beyond such modifications as 



Errors of Authors, 39 

are occasionally seen in the history of the Church ? 
It was not ! The history is plain. 

" He proposed to teach a new rehgion." This 
new religion is several times spoken of by Dr. Stu- 
art. Beyond all question there was no new relig- 
ion in those times that the Saviour had anything to 
do with. The only new religion known in those days, 
that I know of, was the new faith set up by the 
rejecting Jews, in opposition to the Saviour. 

To " entirely change the whole face of the Jewish 
religion" is a mere fancy, utterly unsupported by 
truth or reason. 

75. Dr. Stuart says : " It was a bold undertaking 
to come out against the whole Jewish people, and 
especially the priesthood, on the subject of their 
rehgion." 

But this the Saviour did not do. I ask Dr. Stuart 
for the evidence that the whole Jewish people, or 
even a majority of them, ever offered the Saviour 
any opposition in any matter of their religion. I 
"undertake to say there is no such testimony. 

76. " Who among them all ever knew or ta^ight 
what a holy life is, and the necessity and importance 
of it ? " (i)r. Stuart^ of Andover.') 

I will mention the names of a few : Moses, Joshua, 
Samuel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Job, David, Solomon, 
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, 
Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zepha- 
niah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and many others 
incidentally mentioned in Scripture. 

77. It is apparent that Dr. Stuart does not hold 
the Jewish religion, the religion of the Church be- 
fore Christ, responsible for the errors of its mis- 
taken advocates. He understands that point pre- 



40 The City of God. 

cisely, because he says : "If tyrants, claiming the 
name of Christians, have persecuted and oppressed 
in order to extend the domain of Christianity, or 
rehgion, which absolutely forbids this, then the 
Christian religion is not answerable for it." And of 
course, just so of the rehgion of the Church at any 
time. 

78. Dr. Stuart, in his Commentary on Romans^ 
commences his Introduction thus : " History affords 
no certain evidence respecting the individual who 
first preached the gospel at Rome. The Romish 
Church, indeed, maintain that Peter was the founder 
of the first Christian community in that city." 

Allow me to suggest that both he and the Romish 
Church, in this dispute, are requiring history to per- 
form impossibihties. History cannot point out a 
thing which never happened. In the nature of the 
thing there could have been no such event, nor 
any such individual. What does he mean by first 
preached the gospel? Revealed religion was cer- 
tainly preached, more or less perfectly or correctly 
preached, in the city of Rome, long before the 
death of Jesus. There was a church there before 
that time. We learn thus much, at least, from Acts 
ii. 10. Now, who first preached in that church, 
among those persons professing faith in Christ, and 
in accordance with their general behef , that the man 
Jesus was the Messiah of their faith, is a very differ- 
ent question from that debated by Dr. Stuart and 
the Romish Church, That question is : Who first 
preached the (new) gospel at Rome ? and. What 
individual was the founder of the first Christian 
community in that city ? In the sense here meant, 
no such things ever happened. 



Errors of Authors. 41 

I respectfully suggest that Dr. Stuart would have 
been a hundred-fold more successful in this argument, 
if, instead of joining issue with the Romanists on 
the mythical question they raise about a fact which 
never had an existence, he had asked his opponents to 
show that a Christian church, some church different 
from that which had existed of old, was founded 
at all at Rome, either by Peter, or by any one else. 
The admission by Dr. Stuart, that some person, after 
the death, or after the birth, of Jesus Christ, first 
preached the gospel .at Rome, meaning by the word 
gospel some doctrines of religion, is, first, the ad- 
mission of that which is historically untrue; and 
secondly, if not absolutely fatal, is greatly embarrass- 
ing to his argument with the Romish Church. 
Strange that he makes it ; and stranger still that a 
thousand others do the same thing. 

79. " It is certain that great numbers of Jews and 
devout proselytes were converted at first to Chris- 
tianity.'-' (^Horne^s Introduction^ vol. i. p. 134.) 

No ; that is a transparent blunder ; and in the 
mouth of a Christian it is a contradiction of his faith. 
It is certain that great numbers of persons then in 
the Church, known as Jews, were, at first — the 
first day, week, year, or several years, of the preach- 
ing of the apostles after the resurrection — found in 
church association with the apostles. Indeed, they, 
and they alone, composed the entire Church, in asso- 
ciation with the apostles, for ten years or so after the 
death of Jesus. Of this there can be no doubt. And 
it is equally certain that they must have amounted 
to hundreds of thousands, and most probably to sev- 
eral millions, including all the countries where the 
apostles and their friends preached. But to say these 



42 The City of Qod. 

persons were converted to Christianity, is to say 
that they were converted from their present faith, 
the written faith of Scripture, and to a different faith. 
This was the very thing, and the only thing, charged 
against the Christians by their unbeHeving brethren. 
To say they were converted to Christianity, is a 
very different thing from saying they were taught 
a better understanding of their own religion, and a 
closer comformity to it. I suppose nobody would 
call that conversion. To be better instructed in our 
own religion, is a different thing from being converted 
to another. 

Jews at the present time, or since the apostasy, 
may be converted to Christianity, because they never 
professed it ; but the Jews here spoken of could not 
be so converted until they should first apostatize, 
and then be converted from the apostasy. This was 
the case with some, I should presume, but it could 
not be at first, because with these multiplied thou- 
sands there is not the slightest pretense of evidence 
that they had ever apostatized at all. Indeed^ in 
the nature of the circumstances, it was impracticable. 
Home's Introduction^ saving these blunders, one of 
the best and most useful books in any language, 
teaches in hundreds of places, plainly and square 
out, that Christianity is a totally foreign religion, 
new and unknown prior to its introduction by Jesus 
Christ and his apostles. Strange that the learned 
author did not see, not only that this proves Chris- 
tianity a false religion, but that it is the only point 
relied upon by the unbelieving Jews, from the apos- 
tles' days to this day, to sustain their position. That 
conceded, of course, proves that they are right. The 
Introduction must be written over again. 



Errors of Authors. 43 

80. In the New Biblical Atlas, a Western publica- 
tion, generall}' received as a text-book, at page 31, 
we read : "- The gospel was preached to the Samari- 
tans by Philip, and the first Christian church out of 
Jerusalem was formed in the city of Samaria, within 
one year of our Lord's death." And Coleman's 
Biblical Atlas, p. 211, makes the same remark. 

For proof they refer to Acts viii. 5-8, where there 
is not — nor is there anyAvhere else in the New 
Testament — the slightest allusion to such an occur- 
rence as they relate. Let us look at the unquestion- 
able facts. 

Long before this time there had been in Samaria 
large numbers of Samaritan Jews, with their 
churches, or synagogues, if any one prefers the term. 
They could not believe in Jesus until Jesus lived, 
nor have faith in Him as the Messiah until He died 
and rose. Immediately on the occurrence of these 
tilings we see Philip, in Samaria, preaching in the 
synagogues. Preaching what? What did PhiHp 
preach that had not always been preached there ? 
I answer. Nothing additional, but that Jesus was 
Christ. " And the people, with one accord, gave 
heed unto those things which Philip spake," etc. 
" And there was great joy in that city." 

Now, that is all that took place, all that anybody 
pretends took place. The people received Jesus 
with one accord at the very first opportunity. The 
churches were already there, and suffered no change 
in anything, so far as we are informed. No doubt, 
however, they were greatly instructed and informed 
in their faith. They acknowledged Jesus, and fully 
received Him as the Christ they had always re- 
ceived, so soon as the nature of things rendered 



44 The City of aod. 

it possible. Was that the formation of another 
Church ? As well might you call it the formation of 
another city, another language, another civil state, 
or another religion, as another Church. It was 
palpably and notoriously neither. 

81. Reason and Revelation is a recent publication 
by Milligan, Carrol & Co., Cincinnati. Throughout 
this whole philosophical treatise, as its title indicates 
it to be; the religion we call Christianity is held to 
be one wholly new to mankind in every essential 
respect. At page 358, he follows the blunders of 
others, in making Paul persuade his Hebrew brethren 
to repudiate every rehgious lesson they had received. 
" There was nothmg in the old covenant that could 
take away sins." 

By old covenant, he is understood to mean Old 
Testament. Who believes that ? Did anybody ever 
believe it, except the millions of children and unre- 
flecting persons thus imposed upon ? 

" But under the new covenant the sins of Chris- 
tians are remembered no more." 

As if there was any other covenant, that is, 
arrangement for salvation, ev^r made by the Al- 
mighty with his creatures, since the first sin of 
Adam. 

82. Ecce Deus Homo, p. 28, says of John the 
Baptist, " Suddenly, and without any warning, he 
appears before the people of Judea with the startUng 
message, ' Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is 
at hand.' " 

Startling ? Surely not. The Christian doctrine of 
repentance had been in their Scriptures abundantly, 
and read and preached in their churches every 
Sabbath day for at least over a thousand years. 



Errors of Authors. 45 

Neither is this kingdom any new doctrine. It is 
expressly stated that John told them it was not. 
(Matt. iii. 3.) 

83. Again, he tells us, page 33, about what John 
did " before the dispensation of ceremonies passed 
away." 

Have ceremonies, religious ceremonies, passed 
away ? What do men mean by such expressions ? 
There were some ceremonies before the incarnation, 
which cannot apply since ; they discontinue. But 
that was not certainly a dispensation of ceremonies. 
Ceremonies continue as before. 

84. Again, " He gave it " (the Church) " a writ- 
ten constitution, under which it exists." 

No ; the only thing I know of in Scripture, at all 
savoring of the character of an ecclesiastical constitu- 
tion, is written in Genesis and Exodus. There is 
not a hint of such a thing in the New Testament. 

85. Again, '' Jesus hath revealed a doctrine, and 
inspired holy men to commit the same to writing," 
etc. 

No ;.I do not think that Jesus revealed a doctrine. 

86. " God segregated them " (the Jews) " from 
the other nations of the earth, and by the most 
rigid enactments prevented them from mixing with 
other people." (Page 144.) 

On the contrary, everybody knows He did the very 
reverse. He commanded all men to be religious, 
and required the Church to receive everybody that 
would come in, forbidding that there should be a 
difference between those already in and those coming 
in. Nevertheless, religious people of course segregate. 
This must always be so without any enactments, so 
long as a part of the people remain irreligious. 



46 The City of Qod. 

87. McClintoch and Strong^ sCydopoedia^ vol. i. 
p. 3, teaches that Aaron, as high priest, offered 
sacrifice for sin. This clear, simple proposition, is 
plainly stated and elaborated. The reader under- 
stands the teaching in its simple and natural sense, 
namely, that in those days, sacrifice for sin, by way 
of atonement to an offended God, was really offered 
by Aaron and his successors, and accepted by Je- 
hovah. Whereas the truth is, that Aaron never 
offered any sacrifice, really, any more than those 
gentlemen did. He only acted the visible forms of 
offering, as a mere mode of teaching the doctrine of 
atonement, just as we do now by other instru- 
mentahty. 

88. On page 10 we are told about " the vicarious 
offering of animal sacrifice " by Abel. 

Surely there was no such offering. Abel's animals 
were no more vicarious than McClintock and Strong's 
" Cyclopasdia " is vicarious. The two are but differ- 
ent modes, in different ages of the world, of teaching 
the doctrine of one only vicarious Sacrifice. 

89. "In the New Testament adoption appears not 
so much a distinct act of God, as involved in and nec- 
essarily from justification." (^Ihid. p. 78.) 

In the New Testament ? Why exclude the Old ? 
And why write a chapter about a New Testament 
doctrine which is common to all revelation ? 

90. In art. "Apostasy," same book, p. 307, we 
read, " The primitive Church distinguished several 
kinds of apostasy ; first, those who went entirely from 
Christianity to Judaism," etc. 

What ! That is most surprising. What you call 
the primitive Church was Judaism ; that is, it was 
composed of those persons^-esclusively who stood firm 



Errors of Authors. 47 

by the Old Testament, as Jesus and his apostles 
taught and exhorted ; who maintained the doctrine 
and principles enunciated by the prophets, as men do 
now. And the first and only apostasy we know of 
in that age, was those who went away from Juda- 
ism, the Old Testament, by denying Jesus as the 
Christ. It is most remarkable that McClintock and 
Strong, in their treatise on apostasy, do not even 
mention what is by far the greatest and most impor- 
tant one known to the history of religion, namely, 
that of those Jews who repudiated their Christ, and 
then and there left the Church. 

91. On page 310 we are told that the apostles 
" created themselves into a community at Jerusalem," 
which was " the mother Church." 

On the contrary, is it not palpable they did noth- 
ing of the sort ? The question of Church was never 
raised or discussed by or between anybody in those 
times. The apostles and those acting with them 
never changed their ecclesiastical relations, or thought 
of doing so ; but lived, preached, and died in the 
Church of their fathers. As to the mother Church, 
the pope might be inquired of about that. He may 
know ; I do not. Did any but the apostates leave 
the Church ? 

92. Neander's Planting and Training of the 
Christian Churchy the history of something that never 
happened, opens thus : " The Christian Church, as 
a community proceeding from the new principle that 
was to transform the world, and destined to introduce 
this new principle into humanity, presupposes, as the 
basis of its existence, the person who was HimseK, in 
his whole being and manifestation, that world-trans- 
forming principle without whom the existence of the 
Church itself would be a monstrous lie." 



48 The City of G-od, 

Neander is not only a theologian, but a teacher of 
theologians, and this is one of his books of instruc- 
tion. And I ask, what new principle, in either 
rehgion or morals, was then introduced? There is 
manifestly no . historic truth, in the statement. It 
might as well be said that a new world-transform- 
ing principle of mathematics, or of architecture, was 
then introduced into humanity. Neither was done. 
And so, Neander's Planting and Training of the 
Christian Church is a romance. There is no such 
Church. 

93. "It was the boundary line between the Old 
and the New." Qlhid,^ 

Old and new what ? Can any man answer ? Modes 
of teaching were old and new. Nothing else was. 

94. "It is true that Christ, during his ministry on 
earth, laid the foundation of the outward structure of 
the Church." {Ihid. p. 6.) 

I open the broad face of the New Testament, where 
any man may see the utter erroneousness of this 
whole statement as a mere matter of fact. I see not 
in it the slightest appearance of such a historic thing, 
but the reverse. 

95. " The vital principle of this community, which 
once in existence, should become the imperishable seed 
for the propagation of the Church in all ages, had not 
yet germinated." (Ibid.) 

That is, in other words, religion did not yet exist 
in the world ! 

96. Dr. Whedon, of New York, in his Commentary,, 
in most respects a most excellent one, quotes in the 
Introduction, from Tacitus, Phny, and other heathen 
writers, to show the existence of a " new rehgious 
sect " at the time of the apostles ; and so he regards 



Errors of Authors. 49 

their testimony as proof that Christianity was then 
a " new religion," and thus he shows " the origin of 
Christianity." 

Of course. This was the very ground of their 
opposition to it, and that of the rejecting Jews. It is 
a new religion, they say, and therefore false. If new, 
it certainly was false, and that is the proof of it. 
But it is strange Dr. Whedon should say so, because 
he is a Christian, and therefore supposed to be on the 
other side of this question. His assent that Chris- 
tianity is new, is unaccountable. 

97. On the 5th page of the Introduction, Dr. 
Whedon tells us that the Church in that age bears 
testimony that they were " primitive Christians," 
" a holy Church," etc. 

It seems to me this testimony is the very reverse, 
that they were primitive only as to their general 
name ; but that their rehgion was as old as the 
prophets. 

98. On page 7 the Doctor speaks of the Saviour's 
" bringing his religion into existence." 

What ! Bringing his religion into existence ? 
Then it was necessarily false. The best possible proof 
of the falsity of any religion is that it was brought 
into existence. This is the case with Mohammed- 
anism, Mormonism, etc. 

99. I hoped that Dr. Whedon's Introduction was 
not a very good index to his book ; but on page 46 
we are told that trhe mission of John the Baptist was 
to " bring the people to the moral standard of the 
Mosaic law, in order to fit them for the gospel." 

That is strange. Bring the Church up to the di- 
vinely prescribed standard of morals, in order to pre- 
pare them for some other morals. Are there any 



B9 The City of aod. 

better morals taught in the New Testament than in 
the Old ? 

100. On Matt. iv. 23, we read that " Our Saviour 
and the apostles found the synagogues most eligible 
places for the first preaching of the gospel." 

And this suggests the inquiry, What was it they 
first preached ? Any new doctrines, new morals, or 
new principles of Hfe, or salvation, or religion ? The 
answer is. No. Then why write in a way to induce 
the belief that all these things were new ? The 
synagogues were churches, and of course, as is the 
case now, were very eligible and appropriate places 
for preaching, as well in that day as any other. 
Churches used to be called synagogues. 

101. Dr. Whedon says, '' The synagogues resem- 
bled the Christian churches." 

Yes, — if a thing can be said to resemble itself. 
They were Christian churches, 

102. " Christianity therefore is not the destruction, 
but the completion of Mosaicism." ( Whedon, Matt. 
V. 17.) 

How can a religious system be the completion of 
some other system of religion ? I do not know what 
the expression means. What is meant by rehgion 
being completed ? If wrong, it could be righted ; but 
what is completed ? Can truth be completed ? 

Much is said to this effect by many authors, and 
no one that I hava met with has attempted . to ex- 
plain what was completed or finished. Surely there 
could be no finishing or completing of the incarnation 
of Christ. That occurred wholly at the time it did, 
though it was anticipated from the beginning. And 
as doctrines of religion or rules of moral conduct, how 
3an they have a beginning and a completion ? Modes 



I^'rors of Authors. 51 

of teaching are always improving. They are merely 
instrumental. They are not by any means completed 
yet. I think this whole thing of the Mosaic religion 
being completed in Christianity, is a sort of convenient 
myth, and grows out of the great, monstrous untruth 
of a new rehgion. And these quotations only show 
how our very best theologians are led astray by the 
introduction of a radical but undiscovered error. 

103. On Matt. xxvi. 20, Dr. Whedon makes this 
remark : " Then occurs that part which our Lord 
transfers to the new dispensation." 

It has been a very nice point to decide, with those 
theologians who find it necessary to do so, when was 
the exact time of the close of the old dispensation, 
and the beginning of the new. In many respects 
the exactness of this time, to a day or an hour, is 
vastly important. Dr. Whedon draws this important 
line in the history and chronology of the world, 
through the middle of the ceremony of the last pass- 
over. Others fix other periods. One difficulty in 
finding it is, that the Scriptures make not the most 
remote allusioji to it in any way whatever. 

104. McClintock and Strong (^Ency.^ vol. i. p. 517) 
say, " The effect of the atonement thus wrought is, 
that man is placed in a new position, freed from the 
dominion of sin, and able to follow holiness," etc. 

And so, previously to this new law of saving men, 
there was no freedom from sin, and no holiness in 
the world ! This is taught as a lesson in theology ! 
Then the atonement applies to man personally in 
this chronological way. Only those who lived subse- 
quently to the time of the crucifixion have any inter- 
est in it ! 

105. Again. " The victory of the death of Christ 



62 The City of God, 

over the power of the devil begins now to play a 
prominent part in the idea of atonement." 

No, not begins now. It began ages previously. 

106. " Baptism is one of the sacraments of the 
Christian Church." (^McClintock and Strong's Cyc.^ 
vol. i. p. 639.) 

Rather, it is the mode of administering one of the 
sacraments. A wide difference. 

107; Whedon (Com., Matt. xxvi. 29) says, "We 
may first remark, that the passover was a true sacri- 
fice : for the victim was a true substitute for the sin- 
ner, dying in his stead, and showing by his death 
that the sinner ought to die." 

Then the writers of the New Testament but very 
poorly understood the Old, for they everywhere 
teach that Jesus Christ was the only sacrifice for sin 
ever known to true religion. What ! a dumb ani- 
mal a true sacrifice, making a real atonement ? . A 
true substitute for the sinner? Then indeed we 
have had a dispensation in which an animal was as 
good as a Saviour ! A book, or a sermon, might 
show that a sinner ought to die ; but a book is not 
therefore a true sacrifice ; it is only an instrument 
used to teach the doctrine of sacrifice. I suppose 
it was to prevent such blunders as this that Paul 
said, " It is not possible that the blood of bulls and 
goats should take away sins ; " though before the true 
and only Sacrifice was slain, it might be used to teach 
the doctrine of vicarious sacrifice. 

108. " The vocation of the Gentiles therefore is 
an eminent illustration of the superior excellence of 
the New Testament above the Old." 

Then God is much more kind and mild to his 
people than formerly ! But who is this that judges 



Errors of Authors, 53 

and decides of the superior and inferior excellence 
among the works and teachings of Jehovah? And 
so the lessons of Matthew are greatly superior to 
those of John, and Paul, and inferior to Mark, Isaiah, 
and Peter ! Who constituted these judges ? Is not 
all revelation absolutely perfect ? 

109. " Paul compares the Jews to children, and 
the Christians to youths." Qlhid. p. 367.) 

Where ? Certainly not in the New Testament. I 
find Paul (Rom. ii. 28) teaching that Jews, true 
Jews, are Christians. 

110. In hundreds of places Calvin teaches in his 
Institutes^ in the clearest and most unqualified man- 
ner, that both the Church and religion of Christian- 
ity began — not merely the name, but the thing — 
began absolutely in the time of the apostles. 

And yet the ministers of that school, on direct in- 
quiry, will hold that they both began thousands of 
years before. Are they both true ? The theory sup- 
ports Romanism, but the practice repudiates it. 

111. "I grant indeed that whatever promises we 
find in the law concerning the remission of sins, are 
accounted part of it." (^Ibid. vol. i. p. 335.) 

And yet I suppose nothing is better understood in 
theology than this, that the law is a simple requisi- 
tion of absolute and unconditional obedience, know- 
ing nothing whatever of remission of sins, of pardon, 
of gospel, or anything of the sort. 

112. " Here we have to inquire in what respect the 
legal covenant is compared with the evangelical, the 
ministry of Christ with that of Moses." (Ibid. vol. 
vi. p. 359.) 

And so, the faith of thousands has been led astray 
by this supposed difference between Moses' religion 
and Christ's, as if the Bible contained two kinds. 



64 The City of aod, 

113. " The Old Testament contains nothing per- 
fect." Qhid. vol. vi. p. 360.) 

Was plainer infidelity ever written? And yet 
Calvin was a Christian. This is probably a mis- 
construction, and if so, certainly a very great one, 
of Heb. vii. 19. The word " law " here means the 
primitive constitution, not the law of salvation as 
taught in the Old Testament. The law of absolute 
obedience was not perfect, complete, or sufficient, in 
its adaptation to man in his fallen condition. 

114. " The Old Testament is the revelation of 
death." (^Ihid, p. 362.) 

The Old Testament offers full and free salvation 
to all mankind, and on the simple condition of faith 
and obedience in and to its teachings. 

115. On page 362, in contrasting the Old and New 
Testament, we read, " The former is the ministration 
of condemnation, because it convicts all the children 
of Adam of unrighteousness ; the latter is the minis- 
tration of righteouness, because it reveals the mercy 
of God." 

This is so plainly erroneous that it is strange any 
one can fail to see it. And yet, because Calvin 
wrote it, it passes, century after century, for half- 
way theology. 

116. " The Scripture calls the Old Testament a 
covenant of bondage, because it produces fear in the 
mind." Qlhid.j^, 363.) 

No ; the remark alluded to is not about the Old 
Testament, but a very different thing, namely, the 
law, the primary law, requiring absolute and uncon- 
ditional obedience. This knows no pardon, no salva- 
tion, no Saviour ; and is the same in the New Testa- 
ment as in the Old. But the Old Testament offers 



Errors of Authors. 55 

salvation and a Saviour tlie same as the New. It is 
strange that a theologian should make such a blunder. 

117. " Now the whole may be summed up thus : 
that the Old Testament filled men's consciences with 
fear and trembling ; but that by the benefit of the 
New Testament they were delivered and enabled to 
rejoice." (Ihid.) 

And yet every man ought to know that there is 
not a doctrine of reUgion, nor offer of salvation in the 
New Testament which is not first written in and 
taught out of the Old. 

118. " The new covenant is placed in opposition 
to the old." (^Neander.^ 

The Word of God opposing the Word of God ! 
Who can believe it ? 

119. History of Doctrines hy Hagenhach^ Am. 
ed., Sheldon & Co., 1866, p. 44 : "With the in- 
carnation of the Redeemer, and the introduction of 
Christianity into the world, the materials for the 
History of Doctrines are already fully given." 

And yet it is well known that both the religion of 
Christianity and the Redeemer, with all the doctrines 
of religion known to Scripture, were in the world, to 
the salvation of millions, many hundred years before 
the incarnation. 

120. " Jesus is not the founder of a school, but in 
the most exalted sense, the founder of a religion, and 
a Church." (^Ihid.) 

But neither Jesus nor the apostles ever said a 
word, or did a thing, so far as we read, about a new 
Church or a new religion. And we do read that 
they all belonged to the old Church, and practiced 
the old religion to the end of their lives. 

121. " Our Saviour indeed adopted many of the 



b6 The City of Qod, 

current opinions, especially the Mosaic doctrine of 
om God, and also the prevailing opinion of and ex- 
pectations of the age concerning the doctrine of an- 
gels, the kingdom of God, etc. ; but to consider Him 
merely the reformer of Judaism, would be to take a 
very narrow view of his work." (Page 45.) 

This error has spread itself very wide over our 
literature, and it is not too much to say that immense 
harm has grown out of it. It makes the system of 
salvation that we call rehgion, as taught in the Old 
and New Testaments, to be two separate and dis- 
tinct systems, not only radically and fundamentally 
different, but radically opposed to each other. The 
Old Testament and its teachings being wholly wrong, 
the Saviour did not attempt to improve it, but set it 
aside entirely by a wholesale abrogation and repudi- 
ation of it ! 

On the contrary, the plain truth is, that He did not 
attempt to either reform or change the religion, the 
written and well known religion of the Church, one 
iota ; He only taught and enforced a better under- 
standing of it, and a closer conformity to it. What 
else did, or could, the nature of things require ? Was 
not the Old Testament, every word in it, taught by 
the very same Christ who inspired and thus dictated 
every word of the New ? 

122. " There are two errors which the new-born 
Christianity had to guard against." (?age 54.) 

One of these errors was that committed by the 
Almighty in the revelation of the Old Testament, 
namely, Judaism ; and the other was idol worship ! 
And if that is profanity, it is Hagenbacli's, not mine. 

123. Character of Jesus^ by Schenkel, 1866, p. 
72, says : " In the light of the gospel, the last shad- 



Errors of Authors. 67 

ows of the old covenant still cast by John, soon 
melted away." 

There are perhaps no words of Scripture so gen- 
erally misunderstood as old covenant and new cove- 
nant, as used in our version. There never were any 
such covenants as are frequently explained and un- 
derstood by these expressions. These covenants 
were not different modes, or conditions of salvation, 
as is here supposed. Salvation was always offered 
on the same conditions. 

What was new in the new covenant was not its 
religion, but superior facilities for teaching it. The 
scenes presented by Christ now in the person of 
Jesus, being visible, historic, sensible, and no longer 
adumbrant, are more easily taught and understood 
than before. 

124. " Was not Moses then appointed by God as 
the mediator of his covenant people ? " (Ibid.) 

He was no more a mediator than Isaiah or Paul. 

125. *' Was not a chosen priesthood divinely in- 
stituted for Israel ? " (Ihid.) 

That depends upon what is meant by priesthood. 
If a real, atoning priesthood is meant, then No ! But 
if a moot, symbolic priesthood, in mere appearance, 
used instrumentally to teach the doctrine, to inculcate 
and enforce it, is meant, Hien there was. 

126. " Change of heart and faith. He represented 
as the two indispensable conditions of participation 
in the kingdom of God." Qlhid. p. 92.) 

Certainly; the very same conditions always pre- 
scribed. " Create in me a clean heart, O God, and 
renew a right spirit within me." 

127. Liddon, in his Bampton Lectures^ says : " The 
early assaults upon Christianity were imiformly di- 



58 . The City of God, 

rected against the person of our Lord. The earliest 
were for the most part, from outside the Church." 
(^London Christian Remembrancer^ Jan. 1868, p. 142.) 
The first statement is certainly true, because the 
person of Jesus was the only question in dispute. 
But the other is not true, because, for a number of 
years the only opponents of Jesus and the apostles, 
save a very few Roman soldiers, who merely assisted 
about the crucifixion, were all in the Church. But 
their opposition to Jesus necessarily carried them out 
of it. 

128. " Theologians are not yet agreed how far the 
period of the ancient Church ought to be extended." 
(^McClintoch and Strong'' s Cyc,^ vi. p. 367.) 

• That is strange ! Why, most assuredly you must 
extend it as far back as religion reaches. What is 
the Church but the external association of religious 
people, as such ? 

129. Again, same page, " The New Testament of 
course gives the beginnings of the most important 
Christian usages, such as Baptism, the Lord's Sup- 
per, Ordination, Prayer, etc." 

I think that prayer, at least, to say nothing of 
ordination, etc., was previously known. I tliink that 
is taught in more than a thousand places in the Old 
Testament. • 

130. " Though Peter had been so long a convert 
to Christianity, he keeps clear of the customs of the 
Jews." {Patrick^ Lowth^ and Whitby^s Com., Acts 
x. 2.) 

And so there is a belief abroad that Peter was a 
convert to Christianity, and so he undoubtedly was, 
but not in the sense here meant. He was a con- 
vert just as all other religious men are, before or 



Errors of Authors, 69 

since the age in which he lived. So far as we know, 
he may have been a convert to Christianity ten or 
twenty years before he saw the Saviour. But that 
h^ ever changed his rehgion as is here intimated, 
there is not the slightest suggestion in or out of 
Scripture, but everything proves he did not. 

131. Paul is made to say, " I should not have left 
Judaism to embrace Christianity," but for so and so. 
Qhid. Gal. i. 11.) 

There is a sense in which it may be said of Paul, 
though it cannot be said of any of the other apostles, 
that he left Judaism. But unfortunately that is not 
the meaning here. Before his conversion he left Ju- 
daism, and went off with the apostate Jews after the 
new and false Judaism. And this Judaism he left, 
and returned to his old faith, whicjj he new embraced, 
not only theoretically, but spiritually. 

132. In F. W. Farrar's Critical History of Free . 
Thought^ the second lecture is, much of it, built upon 
the idea that " the doctrine of an atoning Messiah " 
was absolutely new in the world in the time of Jesus. 

And yet the Old Testament is full of the doctrine. 
It is strange that so many embrace the notion. 

133. Calmefs Dictionary, art. " Sacrifice : " " Adam 
and his sons, Noah and his descendants, Abraham 
and his posterity. Job and Melchizedek, before the 
Mosaic law, offered to God real sacrifices." 

Then it may no longer be said that Christ is the 
only sacrifice. These patriarchs offered not a real, 
but only an apparent sacrifice ; not to atone, but to 
teach the doctrine of atonement. 

134. Barnes's Evidences of Christianity in the 
Nineteenth Century, Harpers, 1868, p. Ill : " There 
are two forms of religion in the world which owe their 



60 The City of Qod. 

present existence and influence to the fact that they 
were at j&rst propagated by direct* effort. They are 
Christianity and Mohammedanism. In this respect 
they stand by themselves. The religion of the Jews 
had its origin with their own nation, and grew up with 
themselves, and identified itself wdth their legisla- 
tion, municipal and military regulations, — a growth 
among themselves, and not an accretion from sur- 
rounding nations. They indeed sought to make 
proselytes, but they never sought or expected to 
make their religion a universal religion. Moses 
labored to make the Jewish people a religious peo- 
ple, but not to correct the surrounding nations ; and 
at no period of their history did the Hebrews ever 
conceive the idea of converting the whole world to 
their faith. It wa^ the religion of the Jewish nation, 
not the religion of the world." 

I do not see how a greater amount of plain error 
and misteaching could be crowded into so small a 
space. Can Mr. Barnes point out the constituents 
of this new faith ? Can he specify one item ? One 
single doctrine, or phase of a doctrine ? Mr. Barnes 
could not say directly that revelation has two relig- 
ions. Then why mislead and bewilder ? If any 
religious people who ever lived, never sought or ex- 
pected to make their religion a universal religion, 
which is a possible thing with regard to any indi- 
vidual persons, in any age of the world, it is because 
they misunderstood their religion. Many, — we know 
not how many, — three thousand or two thousand 
years ago^ may have as much misunderstood their 
religion as Mr. Barnes does now. But that the law 
of their rehgion, written then and written now, con- 
templated all mankind, is so palpable as not to 



Errors of Authors. 61 

admit of question. What did the prophets teach ? 
There is not a hint in Scripture that its religion is 
restricted in any wise, to any nation; but on the 
contrary, its universality is apparent and notorious. 
If there was a question involved here, Isaiah Iv., or 
hi. 10, or hundreds of passages in Psalms, and all the 
prophets, might be cited ; but it is not in good taste 
to cite proof of that which is notorious. The blun- 
der is apparent. 

135. Van Doren's Suggestive Commentary on 
Luke^ Introduction : " It is uncertain whether he 
(Luke) became a Jewish proselyte before his con- 
version." 

Or, in plainer words, whether he was converted 
before he was converted ! 

• 136. " They looked for Jesus to restore the ancient 
religion." (^Ihid, Luke iv. 43.) 

And He did so. 

137. " Jewish prayers were chiefly praise and 
benedictions." (^Ihid. vol. i. p. 10.) 

I do not know that human language has uttered 
prayers more rational, devout, or evangelical, than 
those read of in the Old Testament. 

138. Luke i. 19 : The glad tidings were, " First, 
a gospel. Second, blessings promised in the Old 
Testament. Third, new doctrines." And the ref- 
erence is to Gal. i. 6—8. 

The Epistle to the Galatians would be a strange 
place to look for new doctrines. 

139. Part II. of Butler's Analogy^ which treats of 
revealed rehgion, assumes, in the entire argument, 
in every part of it, as an unquestioned and unques- 
tionable fact, that Jesus Christ, by his divine power, 
revealed to mankind an entirely new system of 



62 The City of Qod. 

religion, previously unknown, especially in its great 
leading and fundamental doctrines. This " new 
religion," as he frequently calls it, to distinguish it 
from that revealed in the Old Testament, is what he 
always means by " Christianity." He distinguishes 
it as " the Christian in particular," in contrasting it 
with " a revelation in general." 

The revealed religion, therefore, the analogy of 
which to nature he so ably and so logically traces, 
is essentially and constitutionally dualistic. This 
vrill not be questioned by any one who will look at 
the argument. 

And yet one dispensation of religion for one age 
of the world, and another for another, is certainly not 
known to Scripture. And although Bishop Butler 
says, "It is an acknowledged historical fact that 
Christianity offered itself to the world " at the 
period alluded to, and demanded to be received upon 
the testimony of the miracles of that age, he will not 
pretend, on cross-examination, that it was Chris- 
tianity, any doctrines, or any system of religion that 
was thus offered to the world, or that indeed it was 
anything more than an incident pertaining to relig- 
ion, namely, the advent of the Saviour, and such of 
his mediatorial and sacrificial acts as were intended 
for human eyes, that was thus offered. And even 
this, he will further acknowledge, always pertained 
to, inhered in, and was part and parcel of the relig- 
ious system revealed to mankind four thousand years 
previously. 

And although he says that Christianity, so intro- 
duced, was proven to be a true system by those 
miracles, yet, under cross-examination, no man will 
pretend that they tested, or were calculated or in- 



Errors of Authors, 63 

tended to test anything but a simple, single fact in 
regard to the personality of Jesus, namely, that He 
was Christ. 

And although he says that Jesus Christ "founded 
a Church," he would be absolutely compelled, on a 
moment's suggestion, to say He did not, because it is 
palpable He did not. 

140. In Analogy^ Part II. chap, i., we read as 
follows : — 

" As Christianity served these ends and purposes, 
when it was first published, by the miraculous pub- 
lication itself, so it was intended to serve the same 
purposes in future ages, by means of the settle- 
ment of a visible Church ; of a society, distinguished 
from common ones, and from the rest of the world, 
by peculiar religious institutions ; by an instituted 
method of instruction, and an instituted form of ex- 
ternal religion. Miraculous powers were given to 
the first preachers of Christianity, in order to their 
introducing it into the world ; a visible Church was 
established, in order to continue it, and carry it on 
successively throughout all ages." 

I will not sujffer any one to mistake me so far as 
to suppose I am debating questions with any one. 
I am trying only to point out blunders and over- 
sights which do not admit of serious difference of 
opinion. And so I ask. What was first pubHshed 
and attested by the miracles referred to ? Cer- 
tainly it was not Christianity. Christianity is the 
name of the system of religion revealed in all Scrip- 
ture. The theory then first published, and so at- 
tested, was the fact of the Christhood of rehgion in 
the man Jesus. 

The " settlement of a visible Church " is the 



64 The City of God, 

necessary result of individual religion. The two 
things are naturally coinherent, or necessary parts or 
aspects of the true religion. It has no instituted 
form of external religion. By this, must be meant 
ceremonial or ritualistic modes of worship. Mirac- 
ulous powers were given to the first preachers of 
Christianity, in order to their introducing what 
into the world ? That God would save sinners on 
condition of faith and repentance ? Certainly not. 
Abel and all the prophets knew and taught that. 
These miracles attested the identity of Christ and 
Jesus ; that is, that Christ had now appeared in the 
person of Jesus. 

141. " Miraculous powers were given to the first 
preachers of Christianity in order to their introduc- 
ing it into the world." (i5^c?.) 

And if the Bishop were asked *to specify what it 
was that these first preachers thus preached and 
introduced into the world, that he calls Christianity, 
the question could not be answered. It is palpable 
they introduced nothing. 

142. On page 222, Bishop Butler speaks of 
" other obligations of duty unknown before." 

What were they ? Will any man answer ? Re- 
ligious duty then, as now, was unknown to those who 
did not know their duty, but to none others. 

143. Page 256 : " There is then no sort of objec- 
tion from the light of nature, against the general 
notion of a mediator between God and men, consid- 
ered as a doctrine of Christianity, or as an appoint- 
ment of this dispensation." 

Then a mediator between God and men, that is, 
Christ as mediator, is to be considered, exclusively, 
as an appointment of this dispensation. Strange I 



Errors of Authors, 65 

144. Page 266 : " He founded a Church." 
Most certainly He did not. 

145. Page 291: ''In them" (Paul's Epistles) 
" the author declares that he received the gospel in 
general, and the institution of the communion in 
particular, not from the rest of the apostles, or 
jointly together with them, but alone from Christ 
Himself." 

Paul was undoubtedly acquainted with the gospel 
in general, before he saw the Saviour. 

146. Page 292 : " But before anything of this 
kind, for a few persons, and those of the lowest rank, 
all at once to bring over such great numbers to a 
new reUgion, and get it to be received upon the 
particular evidence of miracles ; this is quite another 
thing." 

But there was no new religion, nor any bringing 
over. 

147. Page 328 : " Let us then suppose, that the 
evidence of religion in general, and of Christianity, 
has been seriously inquired into by all reasonable 
men among us. Yet we find many professedly to 
reject both, upon speculative principles of infidelity." 

Then revelation contains a religion in general, and 
a Christianity in particular ! 

148. Bishop Tomlin remarks, "It is certain the 
apostles, immediately after the descent of the Holy 
Ghost, preached the gospel to the Jews with great 
success." 

This, though literally true, makes a wrong impres- 
sion, because it is explained and understood to mean 
that the gospel so preached, embraced new relig- 
ious doctrines and principles not previously known 
to revelation. 

5 



66 The City of G-od, 

149. Jimeson's Note% on the XXV, Articles, p. 
153, heads Section 4 thus : " Laws of Moses not 
binding on Christians." 

He can hardly mean the laws and principles of 
religion as taught by Moses, for these are the purest 
and best Christianity known to mankind to-day. 
He probably means those peculiar modes of teaching 
and inculcating religion before Christ's appearance, 
and which always' pointed forward to his incarnation, 
commonly called Jewish ceremonies. Then his mis- 
take is, that no binding obligation has been re- 
moved by legislation ; but from innate necessity they 
cease to be used now because they adumbrated, or 
pointed forward to that which had occurred. Adum^ 
bration, or forward pointing, ceases, of course, by its 
own nature, when the thing so pointed to transpires. 
Adumbration points forward, history points back to 
the same event. All other laws of Moses are as 
binding now as they ever were. 

150. The doctrine of dualistic revelation is very 
clearly stated by Dr. Ebrard, who continued Olshau- 
sen's Commentary after the death of the author. He 
says, " The death of Christ was a perfect sacrifice 
once offered in opposition to the Old Testament ani- 
mal sacrifices." 

The context shows that the opposition means an- 
tagonism, because the latter was bad, defective, and 
imperfect. But there is not known to revelation 
any two sacrifices, or two systems or doctrines of sac- 
rifice. Only the modes of teaching were different. 

151. Robbins' World Displayed is a book of his- 
tory, for families and schools. In his section on ' 
'' Antediluvian Religion " he says : " In regard to the 
religious rites of the primeval race of men, it can 



Errors of Authors, 67 

only be affirmed that they offered sacrifices both of 
animals and the fruits of the earth." 

That tells us about religious rites — modes of in- 
culcating religious belief; but of the religion itself 
it does not inform us. The children who receive 
these teachings of Robbins' understand that the 
Jews who rejected Christ, and of course who still 
reject Him, do so in pursuance of, and according to, 
the written rehgion of the Old Testament. Then, 
when they become old enough to reason on the sub- 
ject, they find it difficult to understand why the 
Jews were cursed for following the Scriptures ; and 
why we, who do receive Christ, incorporate these 
same Scriptures into our Bible. This is hard to 
understand. 

152. Dr. Dwight (^Theology, vol. ii. pp. 93-95) 
speaks of " the things which the Saviour taught," 
and then specifies, seriatim^ the leading doctrines of 
religion. 

The clear understanding here is, that this was the 
very first teaching of these things to mankind. But 
the truth is, that each and every one of these doc- 
trines was previously taught in many places in the 
Old Testament. 

153? " Fifthly," the Doctor goes on, " Christ es- 
tablished his Church in a new form." Everything 
in it was new ; " new ministers," " new discipHne," 
" new peculiar duties," etc. 

Now, how is it possible for religion 'and theology 
to prosper greatly under the influence of such teach- 
ings ? And then if the Saviour so established his 
Church, was it not a perfect Church ? Why, then, 
do we complain of the Papist for -holding that it 
continued infallible ? 



68 The City of Qod. 

154. " We have seen the foundation of our holy 
religion laid in the history of our blessed Lord and 
Saviour, its great Author, as related and left on rec- 
ord by the four several inspired witnesses." {Henrys 
Com.^ Pref. to Acts.) 

We need not inquire what construction might be 
possibly forced upon this language ; it is sufficient 
to know it is generally understood to mean that the 
entire system of religion in the New Testament has 
its absolute origin in the writings of the evangeUsts. 
Could a greater untruth be stated ? Could anything 
better support the fundamental principles of Roman- 
ism ? 

155. " And in this book we find the rise and orig- 
inal of the Church vastly different from the Jewish 
Church, and erected on its ruins." (^Ibid.) 

Are not such teachings absolutely marvelous ? 

156. Dr. Clarke says (Acts iii. 22), '' Peter evi- 
dently gives them to understand that Christ was a 
legislator, giving a new law, the gospel, to supersede 
the old." 

Then Peter's teaching was evidently untrue. That 
is certainly untrue. The gospel superseded the law, 
or came to its rehef, four thousand years before 
Peter was born. 

157. Nelson on Infidelity^ p. 80, says of "the 
early Christians," they "were almost uniformly 
either Jews or pagans before their conversion, and 
even hated the name of Christ." 

How much pagans knew or cared about the name 
of Christ is another question, but we are not informed 
of any Jews who ever hated that name except those 
who repudiated Christ by denying Jesus. And of 
these we are informed of the conversion of but one, 
namely, Paul, though there very likely were others. 



Errors of Authors. 69 

158. Mr. Owen QComp. Com.., Heb. iv. 14) says, 
'' The writer now proceeds to the consideration of a 
subject introduced chap. iii. 1, where he calls Christ 
the High Priest of the Christian religion." 

This is a clear error. Turn to the text and see. 

159. " The fault of the first covenant was, that 
it made nothing perfect." ( Williams in Comp. Com.., 
Heb. viii. 17.) 

When infidel writers tell us about the imperfec- 
tions of inspiration, we resent it as sacrilegious ; but 
I am utterly unable to comprehend the meaning of 
such teachings in the hands of a Christian. 

160. On the above remark of Mr. Williams, 
Prof. Stewart says, by way of salvo, " The meaning 
is not that the Mosaic economy had positive faults.^ 
namely, such things as were palpably wrong, or erro- 
neous ; but that it did not contain in itself all the 
provisions necessary for pardon of sin, and the ren- 
dering the conscience peaceful and pure, which the 
gospel does eiffect." 

Better let it stay as it was. The mending only 
makes it worse. The faults of the Old Testament 
are, that it is merely worthless ! What a sentiment ! 
My pen trembles while I copy it. No provision for 
the pardon of sin ! Nothing to pacify the conscience 
in the Old Testament ! Reader, I exhort you, do not 
beheve it ! Let such sentiments be scouted from the 
Church. Every word that has proceeded out of the 
mouth of God is a word of mercy, of truth, a perfect 
word, offering salvation, intended to pacify the con- 
science, and is pure gospel, and only gospel, from 
beginning to end. And those men who would set 
themselves up as judges in matters of the merciful 
administration of Jehovah, are but poor, miserable, 



70 The City of God. 

short-sighted creatures like you and me. Who are 
they, to set down this work of God as faulty, this 
as a little better, and that as not palpably wrong ! 
What blindness ! It was but an incidental remark 
of an inspired Apostle, that it was all profitable, very 
profitable. Heb. vii. 19, and other texts, are misun- 
derstood. 

The difference betjween the Old Testament and 
the New, is not in the moral quahty of their teach- 
ings, nor in the things taught. On these points I 
suppose it is enough to say, they are both divine 
revelation. The difference is in their modes and 
facilities of teaching. In the one case you stood be- 
fore the advent of Christ — before his visible work 
became historic : • and so you had to teach it by ad- 
umbration. In the other case, you stand and teach 
after these facts are seen and understood. So here 
were far superior facilities for teaching, but not 
superior things taught. 

161. Jacobus (^Notes on the Grospels^ Matt. ii. 4) 
says, " The Jews looked for Christ, at this time, but 
as a temporal king." 

It is common enough to say so, but I know of no 
evidence of it. There are a few glances of history 
that would seem to indicate that some few persons, 
at that time, entertained such notions of the Messiah, 
but they are very few, and the glances very indirect. 
But as to this being the settled opinion of the 
Church, that is out of the question. 

162. Again, Matt. iii. 6 : " Baptism was known as 
an initiatory rite. Proselytes to the Jewish religion 
were received in this way. Hence they understood 
the ordinance as signifying an espousal of a new 
religion ; and so, it was a mode of public profession." 



Errors, of Authors. 71 

And so our children and people are mistaught. 
Scores, and even hundreds, of such errors could be 
quoted from the same author. 

163. On Matt. iii. 9 : " The Jews boasted in Abra- 
ham. They were his descendants according to the 
flesh." 

Not one m a hundred of them. Perhaps not one 
in ten thousand. See the arguments on this subject. 
Pure blood descent, which is understood, is out of 
the question. 

164. " It is, I believe, an unquestionable fact, that 
before the end of the second century, Christianity 
had been more widely disseminated over the face of 
the earth than any other rehgion, true or false." 
QGreyson Letters^ p. 188.) 

This is a common sentiment, but made upon data 
very illusive and untrue. It supposes that the whole 
number of Christians, at the end of the two hundred 
years, was increased in that period. But most of 
those called first Christians were Christians before. 
They did not now profess a new faith, but only 
a fact pertaining thereto, and now for the first time 
existing, namely, that Jesus was the Christ. The 
dissemination of rehgion is another thing. There 
was no period within a hundred years of the Sav- 
iour's life, that the true Church did not number 
hundreds of thousands, if not milUons. The proba- 
bihty is, the Church, by the end of the second cen- 
tury, had not gained as much as it lost by the defec- 
tion of those who repudiated Christ. But history 
does not inform us. 

165. Doddridge closes Section 15 thus : " Let us 
learn to reflect how necessary it was that the law 
should thus introduce the gospel." 



72 The City of. God. 

I presume, on a moment's reflection, any one 
would regard it a simple absurdity to suppose that 
the law introduces the gospel. The term law, when 
used in contrast or in juxtaposition to gospel, means 
the primary rule of absolute obedience. How can 
that introduce a gospel ? It can have nothing to 
do with a gospel. If we have a gospel, it was 
introduced by divine mercy, over and above, and 
irrespective of the law, meeting its requirements 
vicariously on our part, the law standing firm. I 
suppose it would hardly be understood that the 
law of religious ceremonies introduced the gospel. 
The gospel existed long before the ceremonies did. 
And if not, how could ceremonies introduce a gos- 
pel ? 

166. Doddridge, on Galatians i. 6, speaks of " this 
method of salvation," explaining himself to mean a 
method different from "the works of the Mosaic 
law." 

By this the learner understands that the works of 
the Mosaic law, whatever that may mean, was once 
a method of salvation ; and that on the appear- 
ance of Christ, He instituted a different and better 
method. Now, I ask any man if that is theology ? 
And I ask a question a thousand fold more important : 
How can sound practical religion prosper in a land 
where such theology interpenetrates the early teach- 
ings of the people? There are hundreds of such 
blunders all through Doddridge's exposition. 

167. I have not, in the course of my reading, 
chanced to see Tappan^s Lectures; but from an 
extract, pages 116, 118, in Home's Introduction^ vol. 
ii. p. 120, Carter's ed., 1860, I incline to regard it an 
excellent book. The extract referred to treats of the 



Errors of Authors, 78 

Jewish Sacrifices, so called metonymically, and his 
account of the character of these symbols is so 
rational, and so radically dissimilar from the untrue 
teachings of scores of authors I could easily name, 
that I recommend the extract to the reader. He will 
soon discard the strange notion of these animals be- 
ing real sacrifices, as so many teach, mistaking a 
symbol for a reahty. 

168. Dr. Mosheim speaks of " the Church founded 
by the ministry and death of Christ," discourses 
largely upon it, and in many places explains and re- 
peats the idea that the existing Christian Church and 
religion had both their absolute origin in the world 
in the time of the Saviour's advent, entirely distinct 
from the Jewish religion and Church. I hold it pos- 
sible that some things may be clearly stated in the 
English language, critics or no critics. Then if there 
never was but one Church, Dr. Mosheim was in error 
on this point. 

169. Suppose it to be true, as stated by Mr? R. I. 
Wilberforce, that there was a " time when the Church 
existed in its embryo form in the college of the apos- 
tles," a Romish supposition often assented to by 
Protestants, then what must necessarily follow ? 

If that is true, then that was the beginning of a new 
corporation, or religious society, with a new govern- 
ment in the form of a charter, of course providing for 
legislation, judicature, and execution, for this is what 
government means, and is. And as it was invested 
with the powers of perpetual succession, how can the 
succession deviate even a hair's breadth from the orig- 
inal constitution ? Then if this same Church exists 
at all, now, there can be but one true, divine Church. 
The descending or perpetuating authority, as origi- 



74 The City of God. 

nally created, must inhere strictly in the succession. 
Then Protestant or non-prelatical writers need not 
insist that a " succession of doctrine " is sufficient to 
identify the Church. " The predicate is not about doc- ■ 
trine, but about legal, external authority to govern a 
corporation under a prescribed charter. The inquiry 
then relates to successive, personal investiture, and 
incumbency. The question is not about the Church's 
doctrines of religion, but is personal as to appoint- 
ment to office, hke a contested election. The case 
as stated by Mr. Wilberforce, and strangely assented 
to by Protestant writers, necessarily supposes one 
distinct, exclusive line of succession of legal investi- 
tures. And thus, of course, the question now arises, 
Which, among the several existing Church govern- 
ments, is the true one ? This may be good* policy for 
Papists ; but it is strange Protestants assent to it. 

170. " The doctrine of salvation taught by Jesus 
Christ is called gospel, or good tidings, in several 
passages of the New Testament." (^Bishop Percy,) 

That is literally very true, but the implication that 
it was then first taught, is not true, for the prophets 
taught it also. 

171. D'Aubignd says, " Christianity and the 
Reformation are two of the greatest revolutions known 
in history." 

That depends upon what he calls a revolution. 
They were great events, but reformation would de- 
scribe them far better. 

172. " The new religion had two features, among 
many others, which especially distinguished it from 
all human systems which fell before it. One had 
reference to the ministers of its worship, and the other 
to its doctrines." (^I)' AuhignS .) 



Errors of Authors, 75 

He who sets out with the idea that Christianity is 
a new religion, will of course drift into the next errors 
of new ministers and new doctrines, and kindred illu- 
sions. 

173. " His disciples, beginning at Jerusalem, trav- 
elled over the Roman empire and the world, every- 
where proclaiming their Master the author of ever- 
lasting salvation." (^B^Aubigne.^ 

And the prophets, and all other true ministers of 
religion, hundreds and even thousands of years before, 
travelled less extensively perhaps, everywhere pro- 
claiming the same thing of the same Master. 

174. " The Church was in the beginning a com- 
munity of brethren." QD^AuhignS.) 

Yes, we are told so in the last verse of the 4th 
chapter of Genesis, which is the first historic mention 
of the Church in Scripture. 

175. " Paul of Tarsus, one of the chiefest apostles 
of the new religion, had arrived at Rome." (D'^w- 
higne.^ 

No, not when he arrived at Rome, on the occasion 
referred to. Now he had left the new, false religion, 
then set up by the repudiators of Christ, and had 
returned to the old religion of Scripture. 

176. " Now that none of these motives could influ- 
ence Paul to profess the faith of Christ crucified, is 
manifest from the state of Judaism and Christianity, 
at the period when he renounced the former and em- 
braced the latter." (^Home's Int., vol. ii. p. 322.) 

Did Paul renounce the former faith, as is here 
stated ? He everywhere insists, most rigidly and 
peremptorily, that in embracing the crucified Jesus 
as Christ, he did so because he was now convinced 
that that was the only way to hold fast to Judaism; 



76 The City of Qod, 

thus holding them to be one and the same thing from 
the beginning. The thing he renounced was not Juda- 
ism, in any proper sense, but the new, false Judaism 
which denied that Jesus was Christ. If Paul re- 
nounced the Old Testament teachings, how could he 
be a Christian ? 

177. On the next page Home says, " Shortly after 
his* baptism and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon 
him, Saul went to Arabia, and during his residence in 
that country he was fully inducted, as we may reason- 
ably think, by special revelation, and by the diligent 
study of the Old Testament, in the doctrines and 
duties of the gospel." 

Just so. He learned the doctrines and duties of the. 
Gospel by the " diligent study of the Old Testa- 
ment." How else could he learn them ? 

178. Dr. Lovick Pierce, speaking of baptism, says, 
" It being at best only an outward rite, valuable as a 
testimonial of an inward grace, but perfectly worth- 
less in itself." 

What, I beg to inquire, is it which is thus spoken 
of as at best only an outward rite? Surely not 
the sacrament commonly called baptism. The obli- 
gation of fidelity to the Church, acknowledged and 
made potent in baptism, can hardly be called a rite. 
The rite is the manner in which we acknowledge and 
promise the fulfillment of the obligation, the sacrament. 
But the sacrament itself is nothing less than our duty 
to be religious. 

179. Dr. Means, in a sermon on the birth and divin- 
ity of Christ, says, " The mystery is now solved. I 
understand its lofty import. Tlie infant Messiah 
breathes. The merciful God incarnate enters upon 
his mission of meroy to the world." Again, " The 
promised redemption has come." 



Errors of Authors, 77 

The things here stated can hardly be meant. It is 
very true that at this time the divine personality be- 
came incarnate ; but it is certainly not true that in 
the person of Jesus, He, at this time, enters upon his 
mission of mer<iy to the world. They are two very 
different things, chronologically separate four thou- 
sand years. And that the promised redemption has 
just now come, would mean that in all the four thou- 
sand years before, the redemption was merely prom- 
ised, and is now provided in pursuance of the promise ; 
whereas the redemption was furnished as well as 
promised at the first. The thing previously promised 
was not the redemption, but only a concomitant of it, 
a thing subsidiary to the redemption, namely, the 
fleshly presence and visible work of the Saviour. 

180. M. Renan, in his Life of Jesus, proceeds upon 
the doctrine of a wide and total distinction between 
the religion of the Bible, before the coming of the 
Saviour, and the Christianity by which it was super- 
seded. So you hear him speak of " the new worship," 
'' the infant sect " — that " it breaks its last connec- 
tion with Judaism," and many such expressions. 

This view is very comfortable for such writers as 
Renan. It serves well to distort Christianity, but is 
embarrassing if you want to elucidate it. 

181. On page 196 we are told by Renan, that the 
last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem was that He might 
"attack Judaism in its strong hold, Jerusalem." 

The very principles the blessed Saviour spent his 
life in teaching, in inculcating, and enforcing with 
far more than human power. He went to Jerusalem 
to attack ! It was a religion " with which He had 
not yet broken ! " Historic falsehoods more palpable 
or more dangerous could scarcely be uttered. A 



78 The City of aod, 

caricature of Christianity is the very thing for such 
writers as M. Renan. If sound Christian writers had 
never presented Christianity in these distorted and 
unnatural features, there would have been far less 
license for such semi-plausible infidelity as is given us 
by such writers as M. Renan, the author of " Ecce 
Homo," and the German infidels of the present day. 

182. Dr. Henderson says, " Nine tenths of the 
mistakes which have beclouded and injured Christian- 
ity have arisen from the introduction into it of Jewish 
principles, practices, and errors." (^Relig. Ency.^ p. 
465.) 

Errors, Jewish, Romish, or Christian, introduced 
into Christianity, make up the injury it receives. 
But I know of no principle it possesses other than 
such as ;kvere formerly called Jewish. 

183. Dr. Campbell, in Comp. Com.^ Acts viii. 26, 
etc., says the Ethiopian eunuch " became first a pros- 
elyte to Judaism and then a convert to Christianity." 

This is a strange way to become a Christian, to 
pass through some other and false religion to reach it. 
The history, in effect, says he was a Christian. The 
Scriptures were his Bible, and he went to Jerusalem to 
worship according thereto. Nevertheless, the Christ- 
ship of Jesus was not generally promulgated at that 
time, and that fact could not be believed by him until 
he had good evidence of it. And so, like all other 
Christians of that age, he was baptized into that be- 
lief. 

184. Mr. Henry says (Acts viii. 26) : " Here is the 
story of the conversion of an Ethiopian eunuch to 
the faith of Christ." 

I see no evidence of this. Then what was his 
faith before ? Certainly it was Christ. But there 



Errors of Authors, 79 

were in that day thousands and millions who had the 
faith of Christ, but who, in the nature of things, could 
not have faith in Jesus until they received the nec- 
essary information. Nobody could have faith in 
Jesus until He rose from the dead ; and then those 
who did not see Him must be informed of it. 

185. On Acts xiv. 1, Mr. Henry says : " In the close 
of the foregoing chapter, the gospel was preached, 
first to the Jews, and some of them believed, and then 
to the Gentiles, and some of them believed." 

That is a cloudy expression with a truth in it, but 
told in a way calculated to mislead. Surely they did 
not preach first to the Jews exclusively, and then to 
Gentiles exclusively. The preaching was, as it is 
now, to promiscuous assemblies — all who would hear. 
Nevertheless, this offering of the gospel first to the 
Jew and then to the Greek was natural, necessary, and 
unavoidable, easily seen if you look at the then ex- 
isting state of things. The Jew was already a Chris- 
tian — never professed any other religion ; but in the 
necessities of the case, without a knowledge of Jesus 
up to this period. But now, at this precise juncture, 
it becomes necessary for him to do what could not be 
done before, namely, receive and beheve in Jesus as 
Christ. So that the preaching of Jesus, in connec- 
tion with the general preaching of Christ, presented 
to the Jew nothing but a fact which could not be 
known before ; while as to the Greek, a heathen, one 
not a Christian at all, he must needs receive not only 
Jesus, but the whole system of religion. The Jew 
has only to continue to be a Christian by receiving 
Jesus, while the heathen must be converted to the 
religion itself. So that if every congregation had 
been part Jew and part Gentile, as we might readily 



80 The City of aod. 

suppose, there is apparent propriety in saying the 
gospel was preached first to the Jew and then to the 
Greek. 

186. Conyheare and Rowson's St, Paul, Int. p. 10, 
says : " Then we must study Christianity, rising in the 
midst of Judaism, we must realize the position of its 
early churches, with their mixed societies, to which 
Jews, proselytes, and heathens had each contributed 
a characteristic element." 

What these authors call Christianity, is this : Be- 
tween eighteen and nineteen hundred years ago the 
religions of the world were Judaism, proselytism, and 
heathenism. The first of these had, or once had, a 
divine oversight or authorship, in some unexplained 
way, connected with it, but was now wholly false 
and worthless. The second was a kind of mongrel, 
superstitious faith, ranging between it and hea- 
thenism, and the last was that general mass of idol- 
atry and corruption known as heathen. And Chris- 
tianity was a new religion, in the formation of which 
each t)f these three had contributed a characteristic 
element. But each of these three systems of faith 
must needs be repudiated in order to become a 
Christian. The Jews, as well as the others, were by 
virtue of their - ancient faith the natural enemies of 
Christianity. This is clearly their outline ; but it is 
clear to me that no such system of rehgion is known 
to revelation. 

187. Christian Theism is an English prize essay by 
Robt. A. Thompson, M. A., published a few years ago, 
and republished in this country ; page 329 : " When 
or where did man, from the study of himself or na- 
ture, assure himself of the truth that the Creator is 
Infinite Love, till it was enunciated by the Living 



Errors of Authors* 81 

Word ; till He, by whom the worlds were made, came 
forth from the bosom of the Father, in the fields and 
tents of Palestine, proclaiming the sublime truth of 
Eternal Love from God to man ? " 

In this extract, and many similar ones that might 
be made from this same book, the entire religious 
teaching of the Old Testament is not only ignored, 
but expressly repudiated. The simple answer to the 
above is, that centuries before the time here spoken of, 
the same truth here described was not only annunci- 
ated, but reiterated and preached in every conceivable 
form of expression by the prophets, and was also 
written in the holy oracles, and read every Sabbath 
day to the people. 

188. Among the most formidable infidel objections 
to Christianity I know of, is one summed up and 
quoted in Chris. Theism from Mr. Theodore Parker, 
p. 385, as follows : " The leading nations of the Cau- 
casian race have thus far outgrown, first, the savage's 
rude fetichistic worship ; then classic heathenism ; 
then patriarchal deism ; then the Mosaic worship of 
Jehovah ; and now the most enlightened portion 
thereof come to what is called Christianity." 

I do not say that this argument, as it is stated, is 
beyond the reach of logical argumentation ; though 
I would not like to encounter it as Mr. Thompson 
does. The argument, to say the least, is grounded 
wholly upon a great untruth in Christian Theism. 
And if it had not been assented to by theologians, 
the argument never could have been raised by infidels 
at all. Christian writers have put this falsehood 
into the mouths of infidels. Were I to reply to 
•Mr. Parker, I would not, as Mr. Thompson does, be 
cajoled into the admission of the Hebrew and Chris- 



82 The City of God, 

tian religions ; but would contend at the threshold, 
that the Theism of revelation knew but one religion. 
I would require him to prove his progressive devel- 
opment, and decline furnishing him any material 
with which to do it, especially false ones. The pro- 
gressive development theory rests wholly upon the 
doctrine of dispensations, following along and improv- 
ing upon each other as they proceed. If " the pres- 
ent dispensation stands in a peculiar relation to the 
covenant made with Israel at Sinai, which it has 
entirely superseded," and if " God appeared chiefly 
in the character of a lawgiver " in a former dispensa- 
tion, and if '' the present dispensation supposes that 
there may have been one or more past dispensations, 
and that there may be a dispensation yet to come," 
then, if these things be so, as we are told, I inquire 
what is the objection to the theory of progressive de- 
velopment ? Infidels may not state it exactly right, 
but the thing is admitted. Mr. Thompson in his 
argument with Mr. Parker, admits it ; and many 
other authors admit it. The doctrine of diifferent, 
rising, improving, better and better dispensations is 
the doctrine of development, for the doctrine applies 
as well to God's moral as to his natural providences, 
though I suppose Mr. Parker would carry it farther 
than some others do. 

189. The learned Dr. Cave must, I think, bear 
some portion of the responsibihty of the errors of 
later teachers on these points. In his discourse on 
the evangelical dispensation QLives of the Apostles^ 
p. 101), he says, " The last instance I shall notice of 
the exalting of this above the Mosaic dispensation, is 
the universal extent and latitude of it, and that both 
in regard to place and time." 



Errors of Authors. 83 

Was religion ever confined to Palestine ? Was it 
ever geographically circumscribed at all ? Certainly 
it never was. Then why build an argument upon 
the assumption that it was ? And how was it cir- 
cumscribed in regard to time ? 

190. Dr. Cave tells us that Jesus Christ " planted 
the Church and its religion in the days of his hu- 
manity." 

This is as bad as Neander's " Planting and Train- 
ing of the Christian Church." What was planted? 

191. Dr. Cave says (^Lives Apos,, p. 194), that 
" The apostles had been lately converted from their 
Judaism." 

I am at a loss to know what the learned Doctor 
means by Judaism, so as to make his statement 
agree with known and well settled history. If he 
means the rehgious errors which so plentifully ex- 
isted in the Church in these times, the answer is, 
that there is no in^mation in the New Testament, 
that any of the apostles excepting Paul, ever enter- 
tained these errors, or any of them. So they could 
not be presumed to be converted in that sense. And 
if he means the religious faith and doctrines of the 
Old Testament properly understood, then the reply 
is, that that is the true rehgion which they professed 
and taught to the end of their Hves, which we call 
Christianity. He could hardly say the apostles were 
converted from true, revealed rehgion. I think the 
Doctor makes a clear mistake. 

192. " ' Even so hath the Lord ordained that they 
which preach the gospel should live of the gospel,' 
is the law of the New Testament." {Bp. Morris' 
Church Pol., p. 47.) 

No ; most assuredly this is not the law of the New 



84 The City of Qod, 

Testament, particularly as is here understood. It 
was ordained in the Old Testament, and elaborately 
taught there, and in the usual way further taught 
and explained in the New. 

193. Longking, in N'otes, John iii. 3, says, " The 
words ' kingdom of God ' denote, first, the spiritual 
kingdom which Christ was about to erect in the 
world by the preadbing of his gospel." 

This is either very erroneous or very ambiguous. 
Ordinarily, it would be understood that at that time 
Christ was about to preach some new doctrines, or 
system of rehgion, which would bring men into some 
relation to God hitherto unknown, and essentially 
different from the ordinary rehgion of the Old Tes- 
tament. But when we see the Saviour's preaching, 
we see no doctrine advanced, or precept enjoined, 
beyond what is already written in the Old Testa- 
ment. The preaching of his gospel, therefore, was 
only the enforcement and elaboration of the then 
written religion of the Church. This error is fre- 
quently repeated in various ways in Longking's 
JVotes, and the damage thereby to Sunday-schools 
must be immense. 

194. Longking (^JVotes^ John iii. 4) says, " Nico- 
demus appears to have rightly understood our Lord 
as intimating that he, and any other Jew who would 
enter that ' kingdom of God,' of which Christ spake, 
must be born again, as well as any proselyte from 
heathenism." 

Here the great error we are looking at, is very 
apparent. It is certain the Saviour neither stated 
nor meant anything of the kind. While it is certain 
that all men enter the kingdom of Christ, or true 
religion, in other words, by being born again, it is 



Errors of Authors. 85 

equally certain that a Jew, as such, needed no con- 
version. Being a Jew, that is, being in the Church, 
would imply, prima facie., that he was converted in 
the kingdom, though many of them as it is now, 
were not. Being born again implies conversion from 
irreligion to religion ; and so applies to all apostate 
Jews ; but it is nowhere intimated that Nicodemus 
ever departed from the true religion of the Bible, 
though it is clearly intimated that he was not as 
well versed in its doctrines as he should have been. 
The Saviour did not tell Nicodemus that he, because 
he was a Jew, must be born again. 

195. Dr. Hook says, " We will commence with an 
indisputable fact. In this country there is at this 
time a religious society known by the name of the 
Church. The question is'. Where, and by whom, 
was this society instituted ? " 

The best and most direct answer the history of the 
world affords to this question is this : " Then began 
men to call on the name of the Lord." (Gen. iv. 
26.) Or, as it would perhaps be more properly 
read, " Then (about this time) men began to call 
themselves by the name of the Lord." That is, 
men began to separate from the wicked, and claim 
openly to be the Lord's people ; to associate as relig- 
ious people, congregate, segregate for avowedly re- 
hgious ends and purposes. The Church was not insti- 
tuted Hke a mere human society, but is the natural 
and necessary confluent result of individual religion. 

But this is a vital point with Dr. Hook. There is 
no other possible 'way by which his prelatical doc- 
trines can be supported than by regarding the 
present Church as having been instituted de novo 
al tjie period of the advent. 



86 The City of God, 

196. Bishop Hobart says, " The Christian Church 
was founded by bishops, because the apostles, who 
were bishops, were the first preachers of the gospel, 
and planters of the churches." 

The objection to this is, that the Christian Church 
was not founded at all, in the sense here meant. 
The expression supposes that before the apostles 
began to preach, there was no Church, and that it 
was by their labors that it was -brouglrt into ex- 
istence. All this is clearly untrue. It is useless to 
debate how the Church was then founded, since it 
was most certainly not done at all. The Church 
continued. Let this error be corrected, and a vast 
amount of controversy about the Church will abate. 
Logical popery will cease, and all forms of High 
Churchism will find themselves utterly without foim- 
dation. 

197. The controversy about Episcopacy, three orders 
in the ministry, and what is sometimes called the 
apostolic succession, rests entirely on the supposition 
that Jesus Christ formed his Church; that in the 
formation of the Church, in the Church as organ- 
ized by Christ, such and such principles of govern- 
ment were adopted. Take away this supposition, 
and there can be no such questions as those which 
enter into these debates. But let it be admitted 
that Jesus Christ formed his Church, and then the 
question arises, how He formed it. 

Li a tract before me of the Protestant Episcopal 
Society, written by William Hey, Esq., F. R. S., etc., 
of England, it is said : " We may therefore fairly 
conclude that the directions which are given in Holy 
Writ, for the formation of the Church in the time of 
the apostles, are to be applied to the same society iti 
all ages." 



Errors of Authors. 87 

Now, the objection is, that no directions are given 
at all, in the time of the apostles, or at any other 
time, for the formation of the Church. Where are 
any such directions ? There are indeed many direc- 
tions about the morals and religion of the Church, 
etc., but as to its formation, or government, no such 
thing is hinted at. There could be no such direc- 
tions, because there was no formation. 

198. Dr. Clarke says (Gal. v. 1.), ^' Hold fast 
your Christian profession ; it brings spiritual liberty. 
On the contrary, Judaism brings spiritual death." 

Well, I know of no fairer way to dispose of such a 
statement, than to give it an unqualified denial. 
His context makes us understand by Judaism, the 
precepts and the religious doctrines of the Old Testa- 
ment. On the contrary, I believe that there is not, 
and never was, anything in this world, beneath the 
heavens, moral, mental, or physical, which brings 
spiritual bondage, but disobedience of these very 
precepts and doctrines. I will defend the Old Tes- 
tament so far as to say, it is the word of God. And 
I complain of Clarke's Commentary for saying that 
it brings spiritual bondage. And I exhort people 
everywhere, as they value rehgious truth, to repu- 
diate aijd disbelieve Clarke's Commentary, and all 
other books, so far as they teach such doctrines. He 
says, " Messiah's reign was to be a reign of Kberty." 
Not so by any means. It was not to be, but then 
was, and always had been, as it always will be, a 
reign of liberty. 

199. Matthew Henry (C'om., Gal. v. 1) says, 
" Christ has satisfied the demands of the broken law, 
and by his authority as a king. He has discharged us 
from the obligation of those carnal ordinances which 
were imposed on the Jews." 



88 The City of God, 

The error here is palpable when once pointed out. 
By his authority as a king, the Saviour did noth- 
ing 'on that subject. The cessation of the ritual 
observances here alluded to, was by no means the 
subject of legislative authority. They ceased on the 
coming of Christ, by their own inherent nature and 
constitution. They were always and naturally re- 
stricted to the state of Christianity prior to the 
incarnation of Christ. Being instruments to teach 
the principles brought more palpably to view in the 
incarnation, they of course ceased when the events 
occurred. When and where, I inquire, did the 
Saviour, by his authority as a king, discharge us ? 
There is not a hint of such a thing in Scripture. On 
the contrary. He always explained that He taught 
nothing but what was read in the Old Testament. 
Will any man say otherwise ? 

200. Dr. Scott ((7om., Gal. v. 1) speaks of "the 
method of justification revealed in the gospel," 
meaning the New Testament ; and by necessary 
implication contrasts it with a previous method. 

Does the New Testament reveal a method of jus- 
tification ? Does divine revelation recognize two 
different ways of justifying men ? How strangely 
men write ! ♦ 

201. '' For then the Jewish Church was abohshed, 
and the Christian entered in its stead ; then the 
law of Moses ceased, and that of Christ and his 
gospel commenced." * 

So wrote Prideaux in his Preface to vol. ii. of 
Connection^ one hundred and fifty years ago ; and so 
many have believed, to their great injury, ever since. 
Lord save the Church from such error ! 

202. " Judaism was to be superseded by Chris- 



Errors of Authors, 89 

tianity — the religion of Moses by the religion of 
Jesus. The substitution of the gospel for the law 
was the establishment of ' the kingdom of heaven,' 
the coming of the Son of man," {Palfrey's Relation^ 
p. 90.) 

To refute such clerical jargon it is necessary only 
to cite it. 

203. " The introduction of the gospel was gradual. 
It began when Jesus began to preach." (Palfrey'^s 
Relation^ p. 90.) 

When everybody knows it began four thousand 
years before. 

204. The eloquent Cookman was more eloquent 
than accurate, in remarking in a speech at New 
Brunswick, before the Bible Society, November 17, 
1828, concerning the apostles, that " They were 
linguists without a lexicon, and preachers without a 
book." 

His meaning is, as the context shows, that the 
apostles, beginning a new religion in opposition to 
that of the Old Testament, and the New not yet in 
existence, they had no text-book to use in preparing 
their sermons. This error is, I suppose, too palpable 
to need even a remark in its refutation. Then 
how comes the Old Testament to be a book for us 
now? 

205. " The platform of Jewish ceremonies sank 
beneath the simple doctrines of Jesus." QCoohman,^ 

What doctrines ? Mr. Cookman would have dis- 
covered his error if it had occurred to him to try to 
point out one. 

206. President Edwards, referring to Mark iii. 5, 
says, " It was hardness of heart that excited grief 
and displeasure in Christ toward the Jews." 



90 The City of God. 

It is remarkable that so many persons make the 
Saviour speak of the Jews, the whole Church, when 
He refers only to some few persons then present. 
Toward the Jews generally, there never was any 
such grief and displeasure. 

207. Referring to the fickleness and instability of 
the Jews, President Edwards says, " But when Jesus 
stood bound, it was not ' Hosanna ! ' but ' Crucify 
Him ! '" 

This is a common error, but a clear and palpable 
one. The cry of " Hosanna ! " on the entrance of 
Christ into Jerusalem, is said of the great and teem- 
ing multitudes ; nor is there the least intimation 
that they, or any of them, ever cried anything 
different. The cry of " Crucify Him ! " was the 
demand of a little handful of rabble and soldiery, 
different persons altogether, who crowded around the 
governor's door on the morning of the crucifixion. 
Mr. Edwards' remark is built upon fashion, and 
fashion alone, without a historic word to support it. 

208. A tract pubhshed in 1860, by the Rev. 
Mesiars. Boyce and Quintard — now Bishop Quin- 
tard — begins thus: "The Church which Christ 
formed, and which the apostles more completely 
established, was, from its first beginning, an organ- 
ized body of believers." 

So long as it is admitted an assured fact, certainly 
written, that Christ formed or founded the Church 
as an organized body of believers, I do not see how 
the claim of a succession of apostolic ordinations can 
be ignored. At all events, it is this admission that 
gives rise to the long arguments on that subject. 
The Bishop, and all other High Churchmen are 
obliged to make historic facts for their doctrine to 
rest upon. 



Errors of Authors. 91 

209. Dr. Cave (^Lives Apos., p. 382) says of 
Philip : '' No sooner had religion taken possession 
of his mind, than like an active principle it began to 
ferment and diffuse itself." 

The context assumes that Philip's first religious 
impressions were produced by the interview with the 
Saviour when he was called to be an apostle. It 
would be hard to believe, especially without a word 
of testimony, that the Saviour would choose irrelig- 
ious men, rather than religious men, for his immediate 
disciples, and the particular purpose intended. This 
is stated and explained, it is true, in the peculiar 
case of Paul ; but why infer it gratuitously in the 
other cases ? Paul's case was very different. He 
had renounced the religion of the Church ; but noth- 
ing of the sort is intimated of the others. The 
inference rests upon the strange notion that all the 
religion of mankind, as well as the Church, had 
become extinct just then. In the entire absence of 
all testimony, the most natural inference would be 
that the apostles were pious from early life. 

210. Bishop Latimer, who preached three hun- 
dred years ago, frequently speaks of the Jews, whole- 
sale, as the enemies and opposers of Christ, without 
an intimation that any of them were his friends and 
supporters. This oversight, perhaps already suf- 
ficiently exposed, was far more excusable then than 
now. 

211. Macknight (Pref. to Heb.) says : " Most of 
the Jews adhered to the law of Moses with the 
greatest obstinacy." And on the next page he says, 
" The arguments in it (the Epistle) for supporting 
the doctrines of the gospel, as we have said, are all 
taken from the Jewish Scriptures." 



92 The City of aod. 

That is strange. How can both things be true ? 
The Jews adhered strongly to the Old Testament, 
the law of Moses ; and to draw them away from it, 
and make them beheve something else, Paul urges 
the Old Testament ! Macknight proves the very 
opposite of what he affirms. He shows that the 
Jewish Scriptures prove the New Testament ; that 
the doctrines of the one are those of the other. And 
so, Paul needed nothing better than the former to 
prove the latter. 

212. Macknight says, " The revelation which He 
(Christ) made to mankind is more perfect than the 
revelation made to the Jews." 

I cannot admit that, because I cannot admit that 
anything is more perfect than any divine revelation. 

213. " After this we read of many thousands of 
Jews that beheved in Jerusalem." (Edwards' Hist, 
Hedemp., p. 349.) 

Believed what ? Anything different from what 
they had always believed ? I know of nothing be- 
lieved in the Church then by these Jews, that was 
not always believed, save one thing, which in its 
nature could not be beheved before, namely, that 
Jesus was Christ. 

21^. 44 Pqj, ^j^ ^g^g j.^Q manner of the apostles to go 
first into the synagogues of the Jews, and preach the 
Gospel to them." (^Hist. Redemp,^ p. 349.) 

That is not quite accurate. This would be better. 
For it was the manner of the apostles to continue 
to worship in the synagogues, where they always 
worshipped, and preach to their brethren the joyful 
news that Christ had certainly come. 

215. Dr. Robt. Hall, in Brit. Pulpit, on " The 
Blessedness of Giving," says, " The world never 



Errors of Authors, 93 

knew anything of benevolence till Jesus Christ 
came." 

Into what strange fancies will one blunder lead 
us ! No benevolence in the world until Jesus Christ 
came, eighteen hundred years ago ? Let us read : 
" And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in 
decay mth thee, then thou shalt relieve him ; yea, 
though he be a stranger, or a sojourner ; that he may 
live with thee." (Lev. xxv. 35.) " Is it not to deal 
thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the 
poor that are cast out to thy house? When thou 
seest the naked that thou cover him ; and that thou 
hide not thyself from thine own flesh ? " (Isa. Iviii. 
7.) " If I have withheld from the poor their desire, 
or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail ; or 
have eaten my morsel myself alone ; and the father- 
less hath not eaten thereof ; if I have seen any perish 
for want of clothing ; or any poor without cover- 
ing," etc. (Job xxxi. 16, etc.) We could read in 
this way, I know not how long. And yet no benevo- 
lence in the world until eighteen hundred years ago ! 

216. The Rev. Robt. Phihp of England (^Brit. 
Pulpit^ Ser. 44), on Gal. iv. 45, remarks as follows : 
" And when you consider that four thousand yeats 
elapsed between the giving of the promise and its ful- 
fillment, the question can scarce escape being asked, 
Why was the promise so long being fulfilled ? Why 
was Christ born at so late a period of the world? 
Why was Christianity not introduced sooner ? " 

And then we have a long, lame, labored argu- 
ment, trying to explain why the world was left so 
long destitute of true rehgion. All of which might 
well have been spared, if it had occurred to the 
learned author that the only religion known to 



94 The City of God. 

Scripture, was furnished at once without any de- 
lay. 

217. Again, Mr. Philip says, " Infidels haye often 
said with a sneer, ' If Christianity is so valuable, 
why was the world without it so long ? Why were 
four thousand years allowed to pass without its 
intro'duction ? ' " 

In the affairs of life generally, it is far easier to 
keep out of difficulty than to get out of one. And 
this will be found to apply with peculiar force to 
logical difficulties. Let it be once conceded that the 
world was left four thousand years without religion, 
and I think it will be hard to answer this question. 
It has been attempted by men as able, perhaps, as 
Mr. Philip, but has uniformly ended in entanglement 
and laborious argument, the infidel generally having 
the advantage. And why make such a concession ? 
It is neither proper, politic, nor truthful. And 
notice, too, it is right here, at this starting-point, 
that infidels have, in various ways, secured far more 
logical vantage ground than at any other. And it 
is right here that all popery and all High Churchism 
find a resting-place. 

218. Dr. Young of Edinburgh, in his Mystery, or 
Evil and Grod, p. 288, says of " the Jewish institute 
as a whole," " But it was essentially a temporary 
expedient." 

Jewish institute is understood to mean the Old 
Testament religion. Besides the strangeness of a 
temporary religion, nobody holds it such, nobody 
treats it such, neither Dr. Young nor anybody else. 
It is quoted and preached from by everybody. 

219. Again, same page, he says, " Judaism was 
therefore, at its best, an infantile system." 



Errors of Authors. 95 

No. Some of the very highest, sublimest, most 
exalted and perfect, as well as the most classical and 
erudite Christianity, both in theory and practice, 
known to mankind, is read in the Old Testament, 
and seen in the lives and piety of the men of those 
times. Infantile, indeed ! If these are the rudiments 
of religion, where are the classics ? 

220. Again, Dr. Young says of religion before the 
Incarnation : " It was, throughout, an appeal to the 
senses, and to the mind, chiefly through the senses." 

It embarrasses me to meet such a statement in the 
hands of a Christian writer. Among the ribaldry 
and coarse slang of infidels I could dispose of it more 
easily. As it is, I can-do no less, and perhaps need 
do no more, than to aver, in the face of it, that the 
Old Testament abounds with the highest strains of 
pious feeling and deep pathos, the holiest and most 
touching emotion, the sublimest fervor and most 
impassioned rapture, ecstacy, and enjoyment known 
to the religion of the world, either written or felt. 
Spirit of David, of Samuel, of Isaiah, and the proph- 
ets, how shall I defend thee ? Throughout, an appeal 
to the senses ? No, no, no ! The Book is the law 
and counsel of Jehovah, throughout an appeal to the 
heart and the intellect, inciting to deep and holy 
communion with God ; and the response of multi- 
plied thousands of Old Testament saints, was the 
deep sanctification of soul, and high heavenly com- 
munion, which the best Christians of this generation 
would do well to imitate. Who wrote the eleventh 
chapter of Hebrews, and for what was it written ? 

221. Again, on p. 289, the Doctor contrasts the 
religion of the Old Testament with the New, on this 
wise : " Shall we expect that the twilight shall re- 



96 The City of Qod, 

veal a single thing which the day has left in dark- 
ness ? Shall we import the principles of a temporary- 
expedient into the enduring and universal economy ? " 
The rule is, to put the best construction on every- 
thing. The only alternative I see, is to suppose the 
Doctor misses entirely the whole scope of Hebrew 
Scripture, by regarding its mere instrumental modes 
of teaching as the religion itseK. This might relieve 
the Doctor personally, however little relief it might 
afford him as a theologian. But we are dealing with 
his book. 

222. Again, Dr. Young says, " Shall we explain 
by Judaism the higher doctrines and laws of Chris- 
tianity ? " 

I answer, I think we should. And my reason for 
so thinking is, that I see the Saviour and the apos- 
tles do so explicitly, expressly, and exclusively, 
through the whole course of their ministry. And 
secondly, I see Christian ministers do so now, di- 
rectly, in one half the sermons I hear, and indirectly 
in the other half. Thirdly, I know of no other way 
to explain these higher doctrines and laws of Chris- 
tianity. 

223. The Introduction to the New Testament of 
Pratt, Woodford ^ Co:% Bible says, "The Old 
Testament was partial and severe. It was confined 
to the children of circumcision, yea, with some ex- 
ceptions, to a single nation." 

Then what business have we with it? No. All 
revelation was always addressed to all mankind. 
Revelation, however, as a mere truism, is necessarily 
confined, in its practical uses, to the circumcision — 
the baptism — the Church. That is, religion is 
confined to religious people. 



Errors of Authors, 97 

224. The Testament and Psalms^ with Notes^ of 
the Am. Tract Society, on Matt. iv. 23, tells us that 
" synagogues " means " the Jewish places of worship." 

I think not. It means places of worship, but not 
in any exclusive sense Jewish. What are now called 
churches were formerly called synagogues. Every- 
body worshipped in them. But after the receiving 
and repudiating portions of the Church became well 
separate, they must needs be distinguished by differ- 
ent names. This distinction became established in 
after years in common parlance. Before that time, 
the true Church was called Jews ; afterward, to dis- 
tinguish the true and false Jews, they were called by 
different names. 

225. Again, we are told in the same book, Matt, 
xxviii. 13, '' The Jews did not deny the resurrection 
of Christ for want of evidence to prove it." 

The Jews did not deny the resurrection of Christ 
at all. They, and none else, affirmed it. To this day 
there is no testimony of that great historic fact but 
Jewish testimony. Nevertheless, some of the Jews 
did deny the resurrection, as stated in the verse al- 
luded to. 

226. And in the heading of the 12th of Mark, we 
are told that " In the parable of the vineyard let out 
to unfaithful husbandmen, Christ foretelleth the 
reprobation of the Jews, and the calling of the Gen- 
tiles." 

The text makes no mention of these things what- 
ever. If it had so foretold, it could not be true, so 
some different explication must be found. The Jews 
were never reprobated, nor were the Gentiles called, 
in the technical sense here meant and commonly un- 
derstood. See our former elucidations of these points. 



98 The City of God. 

227. Again, in the heading of the 22d. chapter of 
Luke: " The Jews conspire against Christ." 

This is one of the most remarkable things I have 
seen in Biblical criticism. It is stated, just that way, 
in more than one hundred editions of the New Testa- 
ment that I have seen. First, the thing stated is 
in itself an absurdity and a contradiction. A nation 
or whole body of people, a million, nor scarcely a 
thousand, could make a secret agreement to do any 
thing. A conspiracy, in the nature of the thing, is 
confined to two or three, or a handful of people. 
Secondly, the text states the very reverse. The Jews, 
the people, were the party conspired against, not the 
conspirators. The conspirators were a handful of 
priests and scribes. 

228. The same book tells us that 2 Corinthians 
iii. 6-11, sets forth " a comparison between the min- 
isters of the law and of the gospel." 

Not only is there nothing of the kind in the place 
cited, nor in any other, but the thing stated is mean- 
ingless and out of the question. The law has no 
ministers. It was never ministered. It is the mere 
arbitrary command of a monarch. As the law was 
designed to secure the highest happiness mthout sin, 
so the gospel is fitted to accomplish this design, after 
the introduction of sin. It is well known that the 
word law is used in Scripture in many different senses, 
to mean many different things : but when used in 
juxtaposition with gospel, as when the law and the 
gospel are spoken of as above, the meaning cannot be 
mistaken. It means the system of divine govern- 
ment and responsibility under which the world was 
placed before it needed either a Saviour or a gospel. 
Of course it had no ministers. We must not tolerate 



Errors of Authors. 99 

ilie clumsy idea inculcated above, that the gospel 
came hrst to the relief of man only eighteen hundred 
years ago. It came before any one ever suffered the 
penalty of the law. Is any man ever damned without 
an offer of salvation ? The law is the rule now, and 
applies promptly to all who will not seek the shelter 
of the gospel. But to speak of its ministers, is to mis- 
take its nature altogether. 

229. In the heading of chapter iv. of Galatians, we 
are told that " We were under the law till Christ 
came." 

Whether that is so or not, depends entirely upon 
what is meant by Christ's coming. If it means till 
Christ came to be our Saviour, which, however, very 
few would be Ukely to understand by the expres- 
sion, then it is all right ; but if it meant till Christ 
came in the flesh, in the time of John the Baptist, 
as most people would understand, then it is all 
wrong.^ This Testament and Psalms^ with N'otes, 
by the American Tract Society, is full of errors of 
this sort. 

230. Mr. Thomas Olivers, quoted approvingly by 
Dr. Clarke, says, " The Christian religion was then a 
new thing in the world," meaning in the time of the 
apostles. 

If that were true, then it follows necessarily, that 
it is a false religion, and that that of the modern Jews 
is the true faith. Conceding that the Old Testament 
is revelation, and that it contains a system of religion, 
it follows that a system new as to that, must be false. 
Moreover, the historic fact stated by Mr. Olivers is 
unquestionably untrue. Both these books are now 
here, side by side, and everybody knows and sees that 
the religious faith of the one is exactly the religious 



100 The City of aod, 

faith of the other. Matthew and John are not more 
akin. 

231. The American Tract Society, in its Notes on 
the Neiv Testainent^ Heb. viii. 4, says that Jesus 
Christ '' could not on earth officiate as a priest, ac- 
cording to the Jewish law, because He did not belong 
to the tribe from which alone priests could be taken." 

A most strange reason, certainly. He himself 
could not, beforehand, by symbolical pre-representa- 
tion, teach his own future appearance, sacrifice, and 
death, because He did not belong to the tribe of Levi ! 
This is one of the theological instructions of the 
American Tract Society. 

232. Leigh, quoted by Dr. Clarke, Heb. iii. 2, 
says that " Christ's faithfulness consists in this, that 
■He has as fully revealed unto us the doctrine of the 
gospel, as Moses did that of the law." 

Besides the offense of putting Christ and Moses in 
that category, and of eulogizing the faithfulness of 
the divinity upon the ground that the Saviour was as 
good a revealer as Moses, I suppose no one would 
construe the remark to mean less than this, that 
Moses and Christ .revealed, respectively, two different 
systems of doctrine, the one in the Old Testament, 
and the other in the New. And yet I presume that 
if our infidel writers were to insist plainly upon that 
fact, none would be more readily offended than Leigh 
and Clarke. 

233. Michaelis, referring to 1 John ii. 7, says, 
" Now Christ himself had given his disciples a com- 
mandment which He called a new commandment, 
and this was ' That they should love one another.' " 

However true this may be literally, this unexplained 
manner of stating it, both here by the learned Ger- 



Errors of Authors. 101 

man, and in many other places by others, is calculated 
to' give, and does give, a very erroneous impression. 
It implies that to love one another is a principle in 
religious morals previously miknown. Whereas it is 
at least as old in the Church as the controversy on 
that subject between God and Cain, and had been 
elaborately taught, and practiced too, since that. 
Nevertheless, it was then new to those whom the 
Saviour thus taught, or some of them, just as it would 
be now new to thousands who had not known, or had 
not heeded it. 

234. Hannah More says that " Previous to the es- 
tablishment of Christianity, philosophy had attained 
its utmost perfection." 

From this, one would infer that the religious faith, 
or principles of salvation, did not exist before eighteen 
hundred years ago. The other error, that philosophy, 
before the apostolic age, had attained any considerable 
degree of elevation, much less its utmost degree of 
perfection, does not properly fall within the range of 
these criticisms. 

235. Again, speaking of Paul, "At all times he 
showed as much respect for their religion as was con- 
sistent with that which he now professed." 

The respect he showed for their religion was to 
advocate it wholly, thoroughly, and constantly. The 
respect he showed for their religious errors, for their 
ignorance and mistakes in their religion, was to op- 
pose them firmly, but mildly and carefully. 

236. Again, " St. Paul powerfully inculcates that 
new and spiritual worship which was so condescend- 
ingly and beautifully taught by the Divine Teacher 
at the well of Sychar." 

This would be better, because true ; Paul power- 



1Q2 The City of God, 

fully inculcates that old and spiritual worship which 
was so condescendingly and beautifully taught by 
the Divine Teacher at the well of Sychar. 

237. The Rev. Dr. Thomas Raffles, of England, 
says : " The first heralds of salvation were fishermen, 
tax gatherers, and tent makers." 

We have no information that Abel, Moses, or any 
of their contemporary heralds of salvation were either 
fishermen, tax gatherers, or tent makers. 

238. The Rev. H. Melville, M. A., of St. Peter's 
College, Cambridge, in a sermon, speaks of '' the 
introduction of Christianity, when another state of 
being is brought into the world ; " and explains that 
it was in the time of the apostles. 

But it is remarkable that he should go to the 
119th Psalm to find a text that would best elucidate 
the Christianity so introduced into the world a thou- 
sand years afterward. 

239. The Rev. Bradford K. Pierce {Notes, on 
Acts iii. 22) says of Moses and Christ, that they 
"were both lawgivers, Moses of the law of rigid 
justice, Jesus of the law of love." 

This is the way our " Sunday-schools, Bible classes, 
and private readers" are instructed in Scripture 
theology ! A grosser violation. of Scripture could not 
be written. Everybody knows, and nobody better 
than Mr. Pierce, that this same law of love, and no 
other law of religion, is written all over the law of 
Moses, if he chooses so to call the Old Testament, 
in a thousand places. Mr. Pierce's book is full of such 
errors. 

240. Dr. A. Clarke, in his Ancient Israelites, p. 
257, gives a chapter on " True Israelites," in which 
he notices some " splendid examples of holiness ' 



Errors of Authors, 103 

among the Jewish people at the time of the advent, 
and conckides the chapter in these words : " Thus 
the grace of the gospel being superadded to such 
holy dispositions, it was easy to make perfect Chris- 
tians of these true Israelites.'''' I am always careful 
to italicize as the author does. 

In my judgment, this is the germ, whether in the 
hands of Dr. Clarke, or others, whence springs most 
of the distorted and crippled theology of the day. 
These splendid examples of holiness, with such holy 
dispositions, needed some other essential thing, it is 
held, in order to make them Christians. What do 
they need ? We are a thousand times led to suppose 
they needed conversion. Conversion from what ? 
and to what ? I would inquire. Dr. Clarke, above, 
says they needed " the grace of the gospel." What 
grace, of what gospel ? If they were holy, and had 
the revealed word of God for their rehgious theory, 
then that is the grace of the gospel, and all the 
grace of all the gospel known to revelation. The 
Christianity supposed to be made up of something 
superadded to the Bible creed of splendid holiness, 
is a myth. There is no such gospel, no such Chris- 
tianity — cannot be. 

241. Dr. Clarke says (^Ancient Israelites^ p. 
294), " Sacrificing is the offering up to God a living 
animal, whose blood is shed in adoration of his 
majesty, and in order to appease his wrath." 

It is impossible Dr. Clarke could think so. That 
is a good description of the idolatrous sacrificing of 
heathen people ; but it is as wide as the poles of 
describing any sacrificing known to the Bible. Any 
sacrifice other than that of Jesus, the Son of Mary, 
is abhorrent to Scripture anywhere, in any age. 



104 The City of aod. 

The sacrifices of these ancient Israelites were not, in 
themselves, " acceptable to God," as the Doctor says 
on the next page, at all ; they were only represen- 
tatively acceptable. As the Doctor wholly fails to 
explain, or seemingly to suppose, they were accept- 
able only when, and in that they represented, typi- 
fied, the true Sacrifice. Nobody explains fuller or 
better than Dr. Clarke does in hundreds of places, 
that Christ is, and ahvays was the only sacrifice for 
sin. Nobody insists more, or better than he, that the 
animals had no virtue — that they only typified 
the real and the true. There is no doctrine nor faith 
in the bits of type metal in a printer's case ; and 
yet these pieces of metal are essentially valuable 
sometimes in typing, in figuring, in representing 
valuable religious truth. " To what purpose is the 
multitude of your sacrifices to me ? " (Isa. i. 11.) 

242. On page 360, on " Modem Jews," Dr. Clarke 
tells us, " There is some reason to fear that many 
Jews in the present day have drunk deeply into the 
infidel spirit of the times, and no longer receive the 
writings of the Old Testament as divinely inspired,^'' 

Do any modern Jews, or did they ever, receive 
the Old Testament as divinely inspired ? I answer, 
Most assuredly not. Right here is a great blunder. 
They say they receive it, but only and exclusively 
upon the distinct hypothesis that its Christ is a per- 
son other than Jesus. They scout it upon supposi- 
tion that Jesus is its Emmanuel. Is that receiving 
it ? To receive the writings of the Old Testament 
as divinely inspired, means to receive its religious 
faith ; that is, to worship its Christ. But if you 
repudiate the Saviour of the Old Testament, how 
can it be said you receive it as divinely inspired ? Is 



Errors of Authors. 105 

its inspiration separate and distinct from the Saviour 
it offer and enjoins ? Remove its inspiration, and is 
it tlien inspired ? Surely nothing can be called 
receiving it, but accepting its Christ — its religion. 
Is there such a doctrinal difference and incompati- 
bility between the Old Testament and the New, as 
that the one may be received, and the other rejected ? 
Can you embrace the rehgion of Matthew, and 
repudiate that of Mark? If modern Jews receive 
the Old Testament, then Dr. Clarke repudiates it, 
because he receives it onl}^ and exclusively in so far 
as it is brought into oneness with the New, and is 
rightly explained and expounded therein. Is there 
any inspired religion in the Old Testament not in 
the New ? Surely we must correct such plain and 
important blunders as this. 

243. Dr. Cudworth, Bishop Pearce, Mr. Toinard, 
and other eminent English scholars, have, with great 
ability and labor, discussed the question " whether 
our Lord ate the passover with his disciples before 
He suffered." In this debate there are four different 
hypotheses. " First, that our Lord did not eat the 
passover on the last year of his ministry. Second, 
that He did^ and at the same thne with the Jews. 
Third, that He did eat it that year, but not with the 
Jews nor at the same time. Fourth, that He ate a 
passover of his own instituting, but differing widely 
from that eaten by the Jews." 

In these lengthy and critical inquiries, it seems to 
me that much talent and learning are employed to 
very Httle purpose. What results are hoped for? 
What is passover? Avhat is Jewish passover? and 
what is a passover of his own instituting ? Passover, 
or rather pass-over, is the name of a mode in which 



106 The City of God. 

professors of religion renewed the profession of their 
obligation to God for his great mercies and deliv- 
erance in Christ, and promised unfaltering fealty 
to Him in the future. By way of convenient dis- 
tinction, we call this obligation sacrament. Other 
obligations and the acknowledging of them we call 
by other names. Now, the eating of anything re- 
ligiously and in commemoration, that was ever called 
passover, was the public and solemn acknowledg- 
ment of the obligation we are under to God for his 
great deliverance in Christ, or the renewal of such 
acknowledgment. What are we to understand then, 
when told that the last passover celebrated by the 
Saviour was not the passover of the Jews, but a 
passover of his own instituting, differing widely from 
that of the Jews ? Differing in what ? There is no 
place for difference but in the mere external mode 
of eating. In any possible case, it was a form of 
acknowledging the obhgation. Vary the outward 
action as you wiU, and call it Lord's Supper, or by 
any other name, and it is still the same passover of 
the Jews. There is nothing instituted, or to which 
that idea will apply, but the outward mode of at- 
testing the obligation. I do not understand the gen- 
tlemen. Determined rightly or wrongly, it amounts 
to nothing. The discussions are called theological, 
but I cannot discern the theology. 

244. Binney's Theological Compend^ a small man- 
ual of divinity, much used in Sunday-schools, says 
of the Moral Law, that it is "that declaration of 
the divine will which relates to the duties we owe 
to our Maker and to one another;" and then ob- 
serves, " This law is greatly ampUfied throughout 
the Old Testament, and though not formally re- 



Errors of Authors, 107 

enacted by Jesus Christ, it is nevertheless as clearly 
revealed in the New." 

No laws, precepts, commands, or anything else in 
the Old Testament, are ever reiinacted in the New, 
because they never ceased or became void. How 
could any declaration of the divine will ever be re- 
enacted ? All that class of theology is erroneous. 

245. M. Renan, in his Origins of Christianity^ 
says, " Nicodemus did not become a Christian." 

Very hkely. The probability is he remained a 
Christian, and became a much wiser and better one 
in consequence of his interview with the Saviour. 

246. On page 206, Renan tells us that at this 
point of time Jesus became perfectly satisfied " that 
there is no compromise possible with the ancient 
Jewish religion." Again, " From this moment He 
takes the position no longer of the Jemsh reformer, 
but of a destroyer of Judaism." Page 207 : " When 
He was pushed to an issue. He put aside all veils, 
and declared that the law was no longer in force." 
Again, " Jesus, in other words, is no longer a Jew. 
He is a revolutionist of the highest grade ; He calls 
all men to a religion founded in the childhood of 
God." 

It must be that every sober-minded man, half-way 
acquainted with Scripture, must see, that in any of 
these statements, and many, even hmidreds more 
such, that might be quoted from the same author, 
there is not the slightest approach to historic truth. 
These things might just as well — or any of them — 
be stated of Moses, Judas, or Pope Joan, if there 
ever was such a pope. But this is not the wonder 
to which I wish to call attention. The wonder is, 
that such senseless stuff should, among even quasi 



108 The City of Qod. 

Christians, pass for a single day, for half-way eccle- 
siastical science and history. 

247. Bishop Seabury says (^Ser. on Chris. Unity'), 
" Jesus appointed the Church's government, intro- 
duced its priesthood, and ordained its sacraments." 

It is not easy to refer such statements to their 
prpper source. They are in the hands of a highly 
respectable divine, and yet entirely devoid of historic 
truth. He no more appointed the Church's govern- 
ment than He did the Roman government. There 
is nothing in the New Testament referring to such a 
subject. As to its priesthood, He always constituted 
it, as He does now, ever since the world needed one. 
He ordained the forms of administering the sacra- 
ments ; but the sacraments themselves are not sub- 
jects of legislative ordination. 

248. Olshausen (Rom. x. 3, 4) says : " The law 
had not wrought in them (the Jews) any conscious- 
ness of sin, and therefore they did not lay hold on 
the new way of salvation, which offered them that 
which the law could not bring." 

And yet when infidels tell us that they object to 
our religion, on the ground that it is inconsistent 
with itself, in that it teaches a system of salvation 
here, and a new way of salvation there, we complain 
of them, and say that revelation teaches but one 
way of salvation. 

249. Olshausen paraphrases Rom. x. 5-8 thus : 
" No man can live by the law but he who keeps it ; 
but no one can keep it ; consequently another way 
of salvation is provided." 

Not another way of salvation surely, but a way of 
salvation. The law is not a way of salvation, but a 
way of living in strict obedience before salvation was 



Errors of Authors, 109 

known or necessary. Such scholastic romance is 
alarming. 

250. The American Bible Society teaches soine 
erroneous theology in its Family Testament^ 1856, 
from which I quote. In chapter heading of Matt. 
xxii. 9-12, it says it tells of "the vocation of the 
Gentiles." 

This has been previously demonstrated to be 
clearly an error. All mankind were always called 
to be religious. When calmly looked at, the suppo- 
sition that rehgion was for these, but not for those, 
is preposterous. Moreover, the text says nothing 
about Gentiles, nor their being called. How many 
families are injured by such erroneous comments ! 

251. The heading of Mark xii. is still worse. 
Here we are told that in the text, " Christ foretell- 
eth the reprobation of the Jews and the calling of 
the Gentiles." 

This is most remarkable, seeing the care that has 
been bestowed on these chapter headings. And the 
people have become so accustomed to such startling 
statements, that they are read without alarm or in- 
quiry. This remark is made of the first twelve 
verses, which relate what is commonly called the 
parable of the vineyard, in which there is not one 
word said about Jews, nor about Gentiles. Stripped 
of fancy and mythology, it foretelleth the reproba- 
tion of obdurate sinners, and the calling, or recogni- 
tion, of dutiful persons. What is the obvious and 
simple meaning of a reprobation of the Jews? It 
means that God rejected from all hope of mercy — 
abandoned and consigned to fearful and final perdi- 
tion — a whole nation of people, or rather the whole 
Church, then consisting of six or seven millions ! 



110 The City of God, 

As to the fate of the posterity of these people, near 
or remote, or their young children then living, in 
this awful, wholesale slaughter, the theological teach- 
ings of the American Bible Society do not particu- 
larly inform us. It tells us only that God repro- 
bated the people then constituting the Church, pious 
people, children, and all, we would suppose ; and 
this would naturally work a reprobation of their pos- 
terity, at least for many generations. To reprobate, 
would not only condemn them, individually, to per- 
dition, but would withdraw from them all the gospel 
means of instruction and salvation known to divine 
mercy ! In reply, I repeat that in the text there is 
not a word said about Jews, or Gentiles ; nor, as I 
think, an allusion to either, as such. Secondly, the 
thing could not be true, because it is well known, 
and unquestionable, that for the space of about ten 
years after the crucifixion, the entire Church, with 
its various membership, apostles and all, when it 
must have amounted to some millions, was made up 
of these very Jews. And the Scriptures inform us 
of multitudes, multitudes oft repeated — whole cities 
and countries — myriads of them, who were the most 
staunch, heroic, and self-sacrificing Christians known 
to the history of human religion. Reprobated, in- 
deed ! And their posterity, with everybody else that 
would join them, have constituted the Church to 
this day. Thirdly, the reprobation, wholesale, of a 
numerous people, is so unnatural, unreasonable, and 
abhorrent to the whole tenor of Scripture, that it 
fails to furnish grounds for an argument. Who can 
suppose that Christ excommunicated every man and 
woman in the Church without notice, and without 
cause ? 



Errors of Authors, 111 

252. In the heading of Acts vii., we are told by 
the Bible Society that the meaning of Stephen, in 
verses 44-50, is, that " all outward ceremonies were 
according to the heavenly pattern, to last but for a 
time." 

In the first place it is obvious, and does not admit 
of argument, that nothing of this sort is stated in 
the text. And secondly, if Stephen had so taught, 
it would have been clearly untrue. What ! All out- 
ward ceremonies to last but for a time ? Congrega- 
tional worship, singing, praying, preaching, reading 
the ■ Scriptures, observance of the Sabbath, all out- 
ward ceremonies previously in vogue in the Church, 
to cease then? So we are told by the American 
Bible Society ; so our families are taught, and so our 
pulpits are misled. 

253. In the heading of Rom. xiii., we are told that 
" Gluttony and drunkenness, and the works of dark- 
ness, are out of season in the time of the gospel." 

And the converse of the proposition is, that pre- 
viously to the time of the gospel — the period of the 
Jews — these things were in season. So the Bible 
Society teaches our famihes and our pulpits, though 
it makes no comment. 

254. Mr. Richard Watson is unfortunate in some 
of his teachings. On the one hand he insists, in 
many places, both in his Institutes^ and Theolog- 
ical Dictionary^ on the specific oneness and identity 
of the Church in all ages. He will not allow us 
to speak of the Jewish Church, nor the Christian 
Church, as though there was a difference between 
them. They are " not two," he says, but " one and 
the same." Neither are there two religions, he says ; 
salvation is always the same — the conditions of 



112 The City of aod. 

pardon are always the same in all ages. This, I 
suppose, is wholesome teaching. Here Watson is 
himself. But then on the other hand : — 

We are told the apostles and their followers " em- 
braced a new and despised religion." ( Jns^., p. 73.) 
" The Christian religion had its rise and began to be 
propagated in the times of the Roman emperors, 
Tiberias and Claudius. " (Page 74.) " Moses and 
Christ, the Jewish and Christian religions." (Page 
82.) We are " given information on which the divin- 
ity of both systems, the Jewish and the Christian, 
are built." (Page 83.) " The actual effect produced 
by this new religion on society." .(Page 134.) What 
new religion ? " The work of Gbd in the hearts of 
sincere Jews, which took place in their transit from 
one dispensation to another, from Moses to Christ." 
(Page 563.) What transit was that ? " The ancient 
visible Church, as constituted upon the ground of 
natural descent from Abraham, was abolished by the 
estabhshment of a spiritual body of believers to take 
its place." (^Inst., p. 622.) 

Here I must remark, that this last expression is 
exactly and precisely the very sentiment Mr. Wat- 
son deprecates and insists must not be allowed. 
(See Dict.^ art " Church.") And on the point of 
" natural descent " being the ground of membership 
formerly, and spiritual experience and consideration 
being the ground afterward, I insist there is not, and 
never was any such difference in the elements or 
formation of Church membership. It is now as it 
always was. Most assuredly it was the law, that 
all the '' descendants of Abraham " should remain in 
the Church. And it was also the law that every- 
body out should come in. Both parts of this law 



Errors of Authors. 113 

were partially, but neither fully complied with. 
" Many of the people of the land became Jews." 
(Esth. viii. 17.) But not all. And on the other 
hand, many went out — thousands and millions went 
out, and so ceased to be Jews. Precisely is it thus 
now. The law is, that all born in the Church shall 
stay in, and that those out shall come in. Some 
people comply with the law, but many do not. 
Many born in, go out ; but surely they go out in viola- 
tion of the law. And those out who stay out, do so 
in violation of the law. The law of Church mem- 
bership has never been changed. 

255. " The moral laws of the Mosaic dispensation 
passed into the Christian code." (ins^., p. 624.) 

But according to Mr. Watson, and the Scriptures, 
there is, and always was, but one code. So', there 
could be no such passing. 

256. " Much Hght is thrown upon the constitution 
of the primitive churches, by recollecting that they 
were formed very much after the model of the syna- 
gogues." (J/isi., p. 683.) 

No ; according to Mr. Watson, and according to 
the Scriptures, there was no forming at all of a 
Church, or churches. " The Church continued the 
same," Watson says. Its model was simply itseK. 

257. " Ordination of elders or presbyters is also 
from the Jews." (Inst.^ p. 684.) 

No ; not from the Jews, but in the same Church 
— not another. "Such was the model which the 
apostles followed in providing for the future regula- 
tion of the churches they had raised up." But if 
the Church merely continued the same, then they 
raised up none. 

258. " This change was no other than the abro- 



114 The City of God. 

gation of the Chiirch state of the Jews which had 
continued for so many ages." (^Dict.^ p. 351.) 

Then the Church did not merely continue the 
same, but one came to an end, and a new and differ- 
ent one began. 

259. " Since the gospel, the true religion is not 
confined to any one nation or country, as heretofore." 
(Diet., p. 425.) 

And yet nothing is better known than that it never 
was so confined in any way, or in any sense. 

260. The Epistle to the Hebrews " was written to 
those Christians of Judea who had been converted to 
the gospel from Judaism." (^Dict., p. 468.) 

How could a man be converted to the same relig- 
ion he had always held ? How could a Jew, who 
steadfastly maintained his ancient faith, and in so 
doing received Christ in the person of Jesus, at the 
earHest period practicable, be said to be converted to 
some other religion ? 

261. " The Jewish religion is, perhaps, more a 
religion of minute and trifling rites and ceremonies 
than even the Roman Catholic religion." (^Dict., p. 
570.) 

That is strictly true exactly as stated. The Jew- 
ish religion that now is. But this modern Jewish 
rehgion is a wholly different thing from the rehgion 
formerly called Jewish, from which these modem 
Jews apostatized. But this is not the sense in which 
the Dictionary is understood. 

262. " The conversion of Cornelius, the first Gen- 
tile convert." (Diet., p. 794.) 

Esther viii. 17, and many other historic passages, 
state very differently. 

263. " The first Gentile church was now estab- 
lished at Antioch." Qlhid.) 



Errors of Authors. 115 

Not if the Church continued the very same. 

" In this manner Paul prepared the overthrow of 
two reHgions, that of his ancestors, and that of the 
heathen." QDlct., p. 789.) 

This is precisely the charge brought against Paul, 
in his day, after his celebrated journey to Damascus, 
by all his enemies, in and out of the Church ; but 
which he himseK stoutly denied everywhere, affirm- 
ing on all occasions that he was strictly maintaining 
the religion of his ancestors. And it is unquestion- 
able that this he did to the day of his death. 

264. " We have already quoted the testimonies of 
Tacitus and Suetonius to the existence of Jesus Christ, 
the founder of the Christian religion." (^Methodist 
Catechism^ No. 3, p. 45.) 

It is very true that Tacitus and Suetonius regarded 
Jesus Christ as the founder of the Christian religion. 
And also the Sanhedrim, and all the apostatizing 
Jews, charged the same thing against him. But it is 
strange a Christian catechism should do so, since all 
the apostles, of whom we know anything, stoutly 
repelled the charge on all occasions. If Jesus Christ 
was the founder of the. Christian religion, then mod- 
ern Judaism must be true. 

265. " The design of the Christian dispensation 
was clearly to develop a perfectly different truth ; 
namely, that God had established an immutable 
economy of grace ; that salvation should be a free 
gift, and all its privileges and blessings conferred as 
a gratuity ; and besides, that faith alone should be 
the condition." QDixorCs Meth., p. 41.) 

And so we have in the New Testament a perfectly 
different truth from that taught in the Old ! What 
stuff! 



116 The City of aod, 

266. Bishop Seabury's sermon on Christian Unity ^ 
(Prot. Epis. Tract, No. 44), assumes in many places 
that the Christian Church had no existence, in any 
sense, prior to the time of the apostles. It was then 
'' first organized ; " and just so it must continue. It 
is not " confined to one nation, as the Jewish Church 
was, but admits for its members, people of all coun- 
tries and nations." 

How errors so glaring could be written and in- 
sisted on so plainly by a scholar, and remain year 
after year among the standards of a Church, is diffi- 
cult to conceive. And how long the Church is to be 
hampered and damaged by such teachings is a far 
more important question. 

267. Under the word '' Church," the New Am. 
Cyclopcedia says : " In the Scriptures the name is 
also given to the body of Jewish believers ; the Jew- 
ish Church being composed of all those who followed 
the law of Moses. The Christian Church is the so- 
ciety of those who profess the religion of Jesus 
Christ." 

But there is no religion of Jesus Christ different 
from that written in the Old Testament. What is 
it ? Where is it ? What is one or more of its tenets ? 
It is a myth. Those who truly follow the law of 
Moses, the Old Testament, are Christians. 
" 268. Cover s Bible Dictionary, art. " Jews," says, 
speaking of the distresses resulting from the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem : " It is hardly possible to consider 
the nature of their sufferings, and not conclude their 
own imprecation to be signally fulfilled upon them : 
' His blood be upon us and our children.' Matt, 
xxvii. 25." 

The historic difficulties with the above are, first, 



Errors of Authors, 117 

that the Jews, as a whole, had no concern m this 
war with Rome. The revolt consisted only in the 
anti-Christian portion of the Judean Jews, about 
forty years after the separation. Secondly, they 
made no such imprecation. That was made by an 
irresponsible handful of officials and rabble at the 
governor's door, perhaps not twenty or fifty in num- 
ber ; certainly very • few. The account shows it to 
have been impossible there could have been but a few. 
The people knew nothing of it. None but the repu- 
diating party ever even sanctioned the crucifixion. 

269. " When Jerusalem was entirely destroyed, 
and the descendants of Abraham were rooted out of 
the land," etc. (^Mcllvaine's Uvid., p. 114.) 

Such a thing never happened. Nothing like it. 
The persons here called the descendants of Abraham 
were not rooted out of the land. On the contrary, 
*' three thousand," " five thousand," " multitudes," 
"great multitudes," often repeated, — whole cities, 
countries, " myriads " of them, afterwards called 
Christians, were not in the revolt of Jerusalem, were 
never rooted out of the land, only as in common 
with other Christians they suffered occasional per- 
secutions. How wildly men write ! 

270. On page 155, Bishop Mcllvaine says that all 
the Jews and heathen were enemies of the Gospel. 

No ; some of these very Jews, exclusively and 
alone, composed the entire Church in connection with 
the apostles, for about ten years after the crucifix- 
ion, and remained firm. 

271. Page 75, the Bishop says : "It is worthy of 
distinct remark, that when the books of the New 
Testament are quoted or alluded to by those whose 
testimony has been adduced, thei/ are treated with 



118 The City of God, 

supreme regard as possessing an authority belonging 
to no other books, and as conclusive in questions of 
religion.'''' 

Then such persons were not intelligent Christians. 
If they had been they would attach the same impor- 
tance to the books of the Old Testament. 

272. Bishop Mcllvaine's Christianity is through- 
out a system of faith and practice, wholly new to 
mankind. Frequently it is called a new religion, a 
perfect novelty to mankind, with many such expres- 
sions. I do not remember an intimation in his book, 
that there is a principle of religion or ethics that is 
common to both the Old and New Testaments. Such 
Christianity is spurious and ought not to be re- 
ceived. But it is the only theory that can possibly 
accord with the Bishop's High Church notions of 
ministerial authority. Let the Old and New Testa- 
ments be put together, and form one system of salva- 
tion, regarding the Church as a religious brotherhood 
common to both, and the Bishop's Church system 
could not possibly survive it. 

273. Dr. Isaac Watts' Rational Foundation of a 
Christian Church was published in London, in 1747. 
And though, in my judgment, one of the very best 
expositions of ecclesiastical science in our language, it 
is long since out of print. It is, however, not en- 
tirely free from the hamperings of older and contem- 
porary divines. On page 6, he says we are to look 
in the New Testament for " what new doctrines God 
has there proposed to our faith, and what new duties 
to our practice." 

And yet it contains neither new faith nor duties. 
This truth is inculcated all through the book, with 
this and a few other unfortunate exceptions. 



Errors of Authors. 119 

274. " The Jews have lost then- peculiar position 
in the favor of God, and are now wanderers from the 
land which is specially their own." (^Melville's Ser- 
mons^ vol. ii. p. 298.) 

By the Jews is understood the people so knoAvn 
and denominated at and before the coming of Christ. 
Surely they have not lost the favor of God ; only that 
portion of them, perhaps less than half, who aposta- 
tized* The other half have since, — they and their 
posterity, — been called Christians. As to the land 
of Palestine being specially their own, I inquire, 
Whose own ? Which haK is meant ? 

275. " Life and immortality had not been brought 
to Hght by the gospel." That is, at the period of 
Ezekiel's vision of dry bones. (Same page.) 

Yes it had. I suppose this expression means the 
bringing of salvation to the world by Christ. And 
was not that preached by Ezekiel ? 

276. Gieseler's Church- History, one of the most 
eminent extant, has the comprehensive title of A 
Text Book of Church History. He teaches as plainly 
and clearly as words can teach, that our Saviour, in 
the days of his manhood, announced and taught a 
system of religion, the character, principles, and doc- 
trines of which were wholly new to mankind. Its 
rudiments, its laws, its faith, its conditions of salva- 
tion and means of salvation, were wholly an in- 
vention of his own, and now for the first time were 
announced to mankind. At page 27, volume i., he 
enumerates the sources of Church History. These 
are, '' 1st, the Scriptures of the New Testament. 
2d, Ecclesiastical Histories. 3d, All the Chi-istian 
writers of this period. 4th, The acts of the martyrs. 
5th, Certain passages of writers not Christian, namely, 
Josephus, etc." 



liiO The City of God. 

The Scriptures of the Old Testament not only do 
not contain any Church History, but are not at all 
useful as a source of information on the subject! 
This is the plain and unequivocal teaching of Dr. 
Gieseler. Surely its escape from uuiversal denuncia- 
tion is attributable to the character of the author, 
and not to the things taught, especially these things. 

277. Grieseler's Hist., vol. i. p. 57, under the head 
of " Christianity in its infancy," makes it attack 
the " Jewish national religion," and attempt its 
overthrow. It was far more difficult to " establish 
Christianity among the Jews " than it could have 
been with any other people, they being so hampered 
and prejudiced with so bad a religion. 

Now, the difficulty with these historic facts is, 
that there never were any such two religions. The 
Jewish national rehgion, meaning the written relig- 
ion, and the Christianity, that fought each other so 
hard, were one and the same identical thing. The 
fighting was between other parties ; between the 
adherents to this common religion on the one hand, 
and certain false and mistaken teachers of it on the 
other ; just as it is now. 

278. Vol. i. p. 77, Gieseler says, " After they had 
again abode for a long time in Antioch, Hebrew 
Christians came hither, who excited divisions in the 
Church, by the assertion that the recently converted 
Gentile Christians must also necessarily become Jew- 
ish proselytes of righteousness." 

The very reverse of what took place. To become 
proselytes of righteousness, that is, to embrace the 
true religion of the Church, as it then stood in the 
Bible of the Church, was the very thing then, and 
now, necessary in all Christians. These mistaken 



Errors of Authors. 121 

Hebrew Christians sought to do the very reverse of 
this, namely, to get the converts to depart from true, 
proper proselytism, and embrace some erroneous no- 
tions of righteousness, then somewhat prevalent with 
some persons. 

279. Mr. John Wesley (Sermon No. 40, on Chris- 
tian Perfectiori) teaches that the religion he now 
recommends was impracticable and unattainable by 
" all the holy men of old, who were under the Jew- 
ish dispensation." 

It is a strange notion, which will not bear the test 
of examination a moment, based , solely upon the 
supposition that our Saviour taught new truths and 
new principles. Did ever more holy men live than 
some of the Old Testament saints? Mr. Wesley 
says not. And again, the same great theologian, far 
the greatest of his age, very properly teaches, that 
holy men need no other perfection of a religious 
kind, than to grow in grace, as is done always, every- 
where, by all truly pious or holy people. The pen 
that never slips is inspired. 

280. Dr. George Peck, in his Introduction to Lord 
Bang's Prim. Churchy says, " The truth is, that the 
details of Church government are not specifically 
defined in the word of God, but are left to be sup- 
plied by the wisdom of the Church. Certain general 
principles are laid down, under which there is room 
for some variety." 

This has been a thousand times stated; but a 
thousand repetitions would not make it true. I never 
knew any one attempt to define what general prin- 
ciples were thus laid down. If there are any, they 
must fix its legislation, its judicature, and its exe- 
cution, for these are the general principles of any 



122 . The City of God. 

government. Now which one of these, or which por- 
tion of either, is laid down in Scripture ? Obviously 
and palpably, neither. The New Testament no more 
lays down any general principles for churches — legal 
principles of Church government is of course meant 
— than for the State, the family, or a school. All 
churches make their own laws of government. 

281. " But we must not forget that the New Tes- 
tament, including the Acts of the Apostles and their 
Epistles, does not profess to give us any minute and 
regular account of the formation of the Church. Un- 
questionably such an account may in a great degree 
be gathered from it — but only by a careful compar- 
ison of one part with another, and by the aid of 
other witnesses, whose writings throw light upon ex- 
pressions which would otherwise remain obscure." 
(^SeweVs Eist. Early Ch.^ p. 2.) 

This small book, we are told, was written " for the 
use of young persons." And thus it is that such 
teaching, page after page, is inflicted upon the ten- 
der minds of young persons, fixing upon them the 
baldest and most wholesale untruths in the cardinal 
principles of ecclesiastical science. Brethren of the 
Church, why not let this great fundamental error be 
arrested ? It would dry up a thousand streams of 
poison which are now injuring the Church, and do 
much towards removing the bracings from Roman- 
ism and other false religion. 

282. " The earliest opposition to the Christians 
arose from the Jews." (^SeweVs Hist.^ p. 6.) 

Yes, and the Christians thus opposed were every 
one of them Jews. 

283. Prof. Moses Stuart, of Andover, has given 
us a treatise on Traits of History and Doctrine^ 



Errors of Authors, 123 

peculiar to Christianity/^ previously alluded to. In 
this lie represents that Jesus arose in the midst of 
his nation, an humble, modest, unpretending, but 
bold and intrepid rehgious revolutionist ; that He 
declared for the extirpation of the religious faith and 
principles of mankind, and particularly for the over- 
throw of " the established religion of his nation." 
Hear him : " It was a bold undertaking to come out 
against the whole Jewish people, and specially the 
priesthood, on the subject of their religion. . . . But 
what did this young adventurer propose to do? 
Nothing less than to abolish the Mosaic ritual in 
the end, and entirely change the whole face of the 
Jewish reUgion. A formidable undertaking, most 
truly. Yet even this was not all. He proposed to 
teach a new religion, which should pervade not only 
Palestine, but the whole world." (^So, Meth. Quar- 
terly^ July 1851, p. 329, etc.) Several other such 
statements could be quoted. 

When balderdash and romance is labeled " Bal- 
derdash and romance," it is not hkely to do much 
harm. But when printed in religious books, from a 
Christian minister, and pubhshed in a Christianhke 
way, the case is different. Now if any should deem 
these remarks erroneous, let the following plain, 
Biblical, historic facts determine. 

1st. When Jesus became a man. He was a mem- 
ber of the Church, the only divinely recognized 
Church on earth, call it by what name you will. 
2d. His Church had a written reUgion, which we. 
have now, word for word. 3d. There was also in 
the Church a thing which has always been in it, 
namely, persons, teachers and others, who more or 
less misunderstood their written Scriptures ; and so 



124 The City of G-od, 

taught and believed many things which the Bible 
did not warrant. 4th. This written religion was 
divine, and therefore not only true, but immaculate. 
5th. Jesus, from the time He was twelve years old, 
till He was led away to Calvary, approved, believed, 
recommended, taught, and enforced every doctrine, 
precept, and rule, of both morals and faith, written in 
the Scriptures. 6th. He did not announce, propa- 
gate, or teach any religious doctrine, principle, or 
rule of ethics not then and now read in the Old 
Testament. Nor did He change, or hint at chang- 
ing, either entirely or partially, any one of them. 
7th. As to the rehgious errors above alluded to, we . 
are not informed as to the comparative extent of 
them. But, as is the case now, and has always 
been, they prevailed considerably. 8th. The Sav- 
iour always treated these errors as errors, not as 
reUgion. He. always spoke of them as he must needs 
do, to speak the truth — not as the religion of the 
Church, nor any part thereof, but as religious errors, 
foisted upon the creduHty of those who believed 
them, by ignorant or wicked men. And He ex- 
horted men everywhere to discard, disbelieve, and 
abandon these errors, and cleave to the true, written 
rehgion of the Church, as it had been handed down 
of old. 9th. He never came out against the whole 
Jewish people, nor against any portion thereof, un- 
less you would call persuading men to abandon error 
and do right, coming out against them. He opposed 
'the errors as a teacher and ' philanthropist, because 
He loved the people and the Church. 10th. He 
never sought entirely to change the whole face of 
the Jewish Church and rehgion, nor any part there- 
of. Nor did He propose to teach a new rehgion, 



Errors of Authors, 125 

either in whole or in part. He was no more a new 
teacher than all true teachers are such. His lessons 
were new to those unacquainted \vdth them. 11th. 
Nevertheless, the Saviour discontinued the use of 
such symbohcal modes of teaching religious doc- 
trine, as in their nature pertained to that period of 
the Church before the incarnation. These particu- 
lar parts of the jVIosaic ritual necessarily and un- 
avoidably abated, not however because the Saviour 
abolished anything, but merely because He was the 
Saviour incarnate. But no other portions of the 
then existing ritual of the Church went out of use, 
in that age, so far as we know, save such unimpor- 
tant modifications as convenience suggested, and as 
have been seen at other times. 12th. I have vindi- 
cated the epithet " Balderdash and romance," which 
I applied to Professor Stuart's '' Peculiarities of 
Christianity," seldom as such an accusation ought 
to be made. His pecuharities, so far as here noticed, 
are imaginary, fanciful, and not real. The Saviour 
was precisely what, with his own assent, He was 
recognized and announced to be, a teacher sent from 
God ; and no more of a revolutionist or innovator 
than any minister now might be so regarded. I 
appeal to the Scriptures, and the common inteUi- 
gence of all men. 

284. " A little band indeed it was, which stood 
opposed to the mass of their own nation." {Prof, 
Stuart, p. 332.) 

Not at all ; all the history is vddely different. It 
is plain and unmistakable, that on the death of Jesus, 
at the first reasonable opportunities to do so, and 
having never expressed themselves differently, so far 
as we know, thousands upon thousands, multitudes 



126 The City of God. 

upon multitudes, wliole cities here and whole regions 
of people there, gave in their adhesion to and recog- 
nition of Jesus, the crucified, as the Christ they had 
always worshipped in the most open, public, and sol- 
emn manner. And more too : These very same Jews, 
of their own nation, who thus declared for Jesus, 
so soon as reasonable information and opportunity 
warranted them in doing so, and who never did op- 
pose Him in any way, so far as we learn, constituted 
the entire apostolic Church — that is, the whole 
Church — apostles and all, up to a period about ten 
years or more after the ascension, when the Church 
most probably counted milhons. It was not a Httle 
band. Moreover there was no time within hundreds 
of years of that period when the true, divinely-rec- 
ognized Church, most of them solidly pious so far as 
we know, did not amount to hundreds of thousands, 
if not to millions, with a regular ministry, almost all 
over the then known world. Nevertheless there was 
a Httle band, in that day, and a very , important 
one, but not such a one as Professor Stuart imagines. 
In the nature of things, not many persons could, at 
the very first, have any reliable assurance that Jesus 
was Christ. Demonstration of this fact must, at the 
first, rest on ocular and other sensible testimony, and 
so must be confined to a few. All other men, then 
and now, must depend upon their testimony and 
other subsidiary evidence for the truth of this fact. 
But among the millions who received this testimony 
from the apostles there were none, or none of note, 
who stood opposed to them; much less were they 
opposed by the whole people. Of the millions so 
receiving this testimony, we are warranted in believ-. 
ing that they received it gladly. At the same time, 



Errors of Authors. 127 

those who rejected the testimony — perhaps one half 
the Church nearly, rejected it — they and they only 
were opposers of Jesus. 

285. " A universal religion ! The very idea would 
have been deemed an absurdity by them." (^Ihid. p. 
334.) 

So far from there being truth in this remark, it is 
well known that their openly confessed, written, and 
well understood religion was universal — open to 
everybody — in the broadest and most imlimited 
sense. Every prophet had so declared it ; and so far 
as we know, every teacher had so taught it. And 
every minister now so preaches it out of the Old 
Testament declarations of it. Spirits of David, of 
Isaiah, of Ezekiel, and your noble and inspired asso- 
ciates, be vindicated from such miserable blots upon 
your bright escutcheon ! Let any man open the Bible 
now and see what it teaches on this point ! Does not 
everybody know that the Old Testament now con- 
tains a universal religion ? 

286. " As a scheme of general benevolence toward 
universal man, what is there on earth, or ever was, 
which bears any comparison with the gospel ? Cer- 
tainly nothing. All the rest is but chaff when com- 
pared mth this wheat." (^Ibid. p. 335.) 

By gospel he explains himself to mean the New 
Testament. Well, Professor Stuart may deny in- 
spiration to the Old Testament, and so raise that 
question ; but he cannot deny its fact, nor its chro- 
nological antiquity to the New. And that its pages 
do, everywhere, contain a scheme of general benev- 
olence toward universal man, is as palpable as the 
existence of the book. 

287. "The deluded Jews, having crucified the 



128 The City of Qod, 

Lord of glory, and imprecated ' his blood on their 
own heads and those of their children,' have met with 
a terrible retribution." {Ibid. p. 336.) 

The history is that the Lord was crucified, not by 
the Jews, but by a few, perhaps not fifty " or a hun- 
dred. Its millions could not haye known of it till 
afterwards. And as to the imprecation, the account 
is plain that it was the reckless, unauthorized, and 
hasty exclamation of the leaders of a Httle rabble and 
perhaps a few officials. Scarcely a hundred persons 
or 'SO could have even heard it. 

288. Chateaubriand, in his Grenius of Christianity^ 
proceeds throughout upon the ground that Christian- 
ity, in every aspect in which it may be viewed, began 
to exist in the lifetime of Jesus. Like many other 
writers, he assumes everywhere, as a matter well un- 
derstood, that the religion known as Christianity, and 
introduced by Jesus Christ, is totally new to man- 
kind in every principle and feature it has. This work 
was first published in 1802, and is regarded as the 
masterpiece of the great literary friend of Napoleon. 
To me it seems strange it did not die still-born under 
the disregard of Christendom. Hear him a moment : 
'' That Jesus Christ should have chosen for the head 
of his Church the very man among his disciples who 
had denied Him, appears to us a most sublime and 
affecting mystery. The whole spirit of Christianity 
is unfolded in this circumstance." Now, upon sup- 
position that Jesus Christ made a new Church, a 
supposition upon which Romanism rests solely, and is 
thoughtlessly and unfortunately conceded by many 
Protestants, then it is a little strange that He should 
have chosen this particular man for its head, if He 
did so. But suppose no Church at all was formed 



Errors of Authors. 129 

by Christ or anybody else, then what about the 
mysterious pecuhariti^s of Peter's headship ? The 
mysteries of Romanism are the very mysteries of this 
new Church, and the vitals of Romanism are this very 
untruth. Strange that Protestants continue to sup- 
ply those vitals with the breath of life ! 

289. The controversy about baptismal regeneration 
is stated in a nutshell by Bishop Philpotts, Bishop of 
Exeter, in a charge to his diocese in 1842, in which 
he condemns the Oxford Tract theology, but gives it 
credit for some things. " They have given the sacra- 
ments their due place in the scheme of our holy 
religion, as contrasted with those who would make 
them httle else than bare signs and symbols, instead 
of channels of regeneration and sanctifying grace." 

Those who regard the sacraments themselves, con- 
sidered apart from the mere modes of administering 
them, as new laws of rehgion, introduced now for the 
first time, by way of divine legislation, find hard 
work in attempting to steer clear of at least thus 
much of baptismal regeneration. New ceremonies, 
new modes of teaching, are one thing, but new princi- 
ples of worship imply a new relation between the 
divine and the human. It is remarkable men do not 
see that it is not the sacrament itseK, the obhgation 
or duty, that is new, but the mode of performing it. 

290. I have before me a tract written by the Rev. 
Leroy M. Lee, D. D., of Virginia, on the Rite of Con- 
firmation. I look to see what the argument is, and 
find it to be, whether confirmation is or is not " a 
positive institution of the gospel ; " that is, whether 
it belongs to " the organization of the Church as 
estabUshed by Christ." 

We have near fifty pages of argument on that 



130 The City of Qod, 

question. Would it not have been well, first, to 
inquire whether there was ever such a first organiza- 
tion of the Church at all, as is here supposed ? And 
seeing there was not, and so this argument is but an 
inquiry into something that never happened, it is 
therefore a very harmless one. 

291. Bellarmine's argument about The True Church 
is merely an inquiry whether Jesus Christ, in " form- 
ing the Church originally," did or did not estabhsh 
in it this or that particular law, either of rehgion or 
government. 

But suppose the Saviour did not form the Church 
originally, by positive legislation, at all ; what then ? 

292. Soame Jenyns was in his day, the last cen- 
tury, a writer of no ordinary merit. He was a bar- 
rister at law, a man of letters, of high cultivation, 
logical training, and of course very exact in the use of 
language. One of his best works, by reputation, was 
on the Internal Evidences of the Christian Religion. 
This essay, first published in England and then in 
this country, is by some rated among the religious 
classics of the day. It is one of the official pubHca- 
tions of the American Tract Society, and is comph- 
mented as a work of great argumentation and 
strength by Dr. Paley and others. His argument is 
thrown into three logical propositions, as follows : 

" First. There is a book entitled the New Testa- 
ment. 

" Second. That from this book may be extracted a 
system of religion entirely new, both with regard to 
the object and the doctrines, not only infinitely 
superior to, but totally unlike everything which had 
ever before entered into the mind of man." 

In his argument on this second proposition he de- 



Errors of Authors, 131 

clares it to be incontrovertibly true. I believe it to 
be LDControvertibly, and also palpably, false. I hold 
it to be as well known as any historic fact ever was 
known, that at and before the making of the New 
Testament there was in existence another book, which 
we now call the Old Testament ; that this book did 
then and does now contain a system of religion, the 
object and the doctrines of which are, at least some- 
what, like those of the New ; and that there are some 
things common to both. Nay,T affirm further, that 
at least some of the doctrines of rehgion found in the 
one are found in the other. I believe, for instance, 
that in the Old Testament are found the doctrines of 
one God, of human sin, of a divine government, of 
salvation, and several other things, which are also 
found in the New. I remember that in a portion of 
the Old Testament called Exodus, and at the 20th 
chapter thereof, there are seen no less than ten distinct 
reUgious precepts, which go, at least somewhat, to 
make up the system of rehgion which Mr. Jenjnis 
extracts from the New Testament. Now if the 
decalogue, or any portion thereof, has regard to either 
the object or the doctrines, or any of them, which 
enter into the system of religion found in the New 
Testament, then the latter is not entirely new, nor 
infinitely superior to, nor totally unlike everything 
which had ever before entered into the mind of man. 
The simple truth is, that this whole proposition of 
Mr. Jenyns' is wildly and recklessly erroneous. It 
is utterly defenseless at every point, with no pretense 
to truth about it ! A higher or more untrue impeach- 
ment of the Old Testament was never written. And 
yet there it remains, in our Church books, reprinted 
over and over again, for more than a hundred years. 



132 The City of Qod, 

Its lesson of wholesale untruth has poisoned the mmd 
of families and Sunday-schools by the thousand ! 

293. Dr. Bushnell, in his most excellent treatise on 
Christian Nurture^ says the congregation to which 
Peter preached on the day of Pentecost were sinners. 

Of this there is not the slightest historic proof, and 
it is in the highest degree improbable, while its injury 
to the Church is, that it inculcates the doctrine that 
the Church and reUgion previously existing had be- 
come extinct, and that this was a beginning de novo 
to build up a new Church and new rehgion. 

I know of no milder expressions that the language 
admits of than to say that Mr. Bushnell's argument, or 
his assertions rather, are absurd and ridiculous. I 
use the mildest language I can find, that is true. The 
conclusion that thousands of professing Christians, 
met for pubhc worship, holding a true faith, about 
whose piety not an unfavorable word is uttered, are 
sinners, wholesale, because religious ignorance and 
irregularity are stated of others, is absurd ; and it is 
more, it is ridiculous. The argument, however, might 
be made a httle more ridiculous by charging those 
people that they did not know that Christ and Jesus 
were identical. Neither did Noah, Abraham, Samuel, 
or Daniel. Dr. Bushnell himseK did not know it 
until somebody told him. 

294. It is quite too much for Mr. Watson to call 
Cornelius " the first Gentile convert." 

Both he and everybody else teaches, and the Old 
Testament everywhere proves, that he was not. Con- 
verts from without were common always. Count- 
less thousands preceded CorneUus. The pecuUarity 
in his case was, not that he was converted from with- 
out, but that Peter went out after him. Previously, 



Errors of Authors. 133 

preaching was generally confined to the Church, and 
outsiders were expected to come in of their own 
accord. In this instance Peter, on purpose, went out 
from among the Church to preach to outsiders. It 
was the first missionary or aggressive act of the 
Church, of a notable and prominent character. 

295. Bishop H. U. Onderdonk, in official Tract 
No. 47, proves, as he claims, that what he calls 
Episcopacy must form the substance of the govern- 
ment of the Christian Church, because the Saviour 
so organized the Church at first. 

Without stopping to inquire whether the Saviour 
ever organized, set up, or estabhshed anew a Church 
at all, or not, it is taken for granted, and the argu- 
ment of the tract is built upon it. And those who 
concede that ground to him would, in my judgment, 
find it difficult to meet all his arguments. 

296. " Christianity is that system of religion of 
which Christ is the founder." (^New Am, Cyclo- 
pcedia.) 

An essay of fifteen pages in this work opens with 
this language. Throughout it is plainly taught that 
the system of rehgion, as a whole and in detail, 
which we call Christianity, in its doctrines, faith, 
worship, all, is a new thing, for the first time intro- 
duced to mankind by our Saviour eighteen hundred 
years ago. It was a " new-born heavenly life." 
Human rehgion was brought to hght " through the 
apostles." It was "the new rehgion." Many other 
expressions and the entire drift of teaching show that 
no feature of this new system was ever known before.- 
The difficulty with the essay is that it is fundament- 
ally erroneous. The New Testament is an utter 
stranger to any new rehgion, or new doctrines. The 



lU The City of God, 

Christianity which it teaches is made up wholly of 
the faith and precepts of Moses and the prophets, and 
is but an elaboration of them. 

297. Milman's History of Christianity is an 
English work of much classical renown^ It is here 
assumed, without a word of explanation, that Chris- 
tianity, its faith, doctrines, morals, and precepts, its 
very being, in every aspect in which it can be viewed, 
began absolutely to exist in the world, as a totally 
new thing, in the time of the apostles. Its specific 
teachings to this effect are numerous. Nor does the 
book contain a distinct remark, that I remember, to 
relieve it from such wholesale violation of the history 
of Christianity as seems apparent. The surprising 
blunder here, and with many others at this point is, 
that that which was new in the Church did uot re- 
late to either doctrines, principles, or moral teachings, 
but to modes of teaching, with of course better teach- 
ers and better teachings. And this improvement in 
both teachers and teachings was consequent on the 
sensible appearance and visibility of such of the 
atoning acts of the Saviour as were visible. Now 
they are visible and historic ; before they were only 
adumbrant ; though Christ was virtually slain from 
the foundation of the world. 

298. " As Rome had united the whole Western 
world into one, .... so Christianity was the first 
religion which aimed at a universal and permanent 
moral conquest." (^Milman^ p. 22.) 

Yes, but this was not the new, mythical Christian- 
ity of the, recent formation you speak of, but the 
old Christianity of Abel and Moses. 

299. Tacitus says, '' The worship of the Jews is 
purely mental." 



Errors of Authors, 135 

This is not strange, so far as I know, for I believe 
he is not regarded a very safe Christian teacher. 
But it is strange that Mr. Milman should endorse the 
statement, and then pass on as smoothly as if nothing 
had happened. It is strange that such wholesale on- 
slaughts upon the Old Testament should pass for a sin- 
gle day without the promptest denunciation from the 
religious press. As to truth, everybody must know, on 
a moment's reflection, that it possesses not a shadow 
of it. I would gladly say less, but how can I ? 

300. Fairbairn, in his Typology^ argues at length, 
*' why it is no longer proper to keep the symbolical 
institutes comiected with the law," and remarks, 
*' It is true that no express authoritative injunction 
was given at first, for the discontinuance of these 
services." 

At first ? No, nor at last, nor ever. They discon- 
tinued from the necessity of the thing, just as the 
date of a year discontinues. 

301. Two separate and distinct churches, the Jew- 
ish and Christian, with their separate and distinct 
religions, are in numerous places, in Fairbairn's 
Typology^ as plainly set forth as language can state 
facts. The entire drift of teaching is, that the rela- 
tion between the two reUgions is merely typical and 
historic ; but as to religious doctrines, they are as 
wide as the poles, and irreconcilably hostile. I know 
of nothing ever written, better calculated to degrade 
the Old Testament Scriptures. And yet there it lies, 
in two goodly sized octavo volumes, and counted good 
Christian reading:. 

302. Mr. John Wesley QNotes^ on Acts xxviii. 15) 
says, " It is remarkable that there is no certain ac- 
count by whom Christianity was planted in Rome. 



136 The City of a.od. 

Probably some inhabitants of that city were at Jeru- 
salem on the day of Pentecost, and being converted 
themselves, carried . the gospel thither at their re- 
turn." 

I see nothing more remarkable about Rome, in this 
respect, than a hundred other places where the early 
Christian history has faded away. It is certain that 
Christianity, not indeed called by that name, but the 
same religion afterwards called Christianity, existed 
in Rome long before the death or birth of Jesus 
Christ. The Church in Rome began to be called by 
the name of Christian, not immediately after the day 
of Pentecost, but some time, we do not know how long, 
after it began to be so called at Antioch. As to the 
assumed necessity of these persons from Rome, at 
Pentecost, being converted then, it is as gratuitous 
as to suppose the same thing in regard to any other 
Church members, then or now, of whose personal 
piety we have no information. No doubt the return 
of their brethren from Pentecost gave those at home 
the first certain definitive proof of the incarnation 
and crucifixion of Christ. Nor have we any reason 
to doubt but the religious people in that city gladly 
and fully received this information, and acted upon it 
at the first practicable moment. But that is a very 
different thing from planting a Church. 

303. There are few authors for whom I have 
higher respect than Archbishop Whately. And yet 
I think some of his views are fundamentallj^ defective. 
Some of these errors, pointed out, cannot be mistaken. 
His debates with the Oxford Tract men, running 
through much of his later writings, relate entirely to 
the question how this new Church, new kingdom, was 
framed, and precisely what religious and ecclesiasti- 



Errors of Authors, 137 

cal doctrines and laws were put into it. They seem 
not to have stopped to inquire whether those things 
were done at all or not. On " The Constitution of 
the Church," it is very plainly and carefully taught, 
that Jesus Christ formed a society, a personal com- 
munity, consisting of separate individual men and 
women, beginning with twelve men, and increasing 
it by taking in others from among Jews and Gen- 
tiles, whoever would consent to become religious. 
For this social brotherhood He prescribed a govern- 
ment, with, of course, particular laws, and which was 
to be of perpetual continuance. (See Kingdom of 
Christy p. 22, etc.) 

Now, in the face of all this, I think it is so plain 
as not to admit of a doubt, when one reflects a mo- 
ment, that neither the Saviour nor others acting un- 
der Him, established, organized, or set up any society, 
or personal community, or Church, at that or any 
other time. Jesus was ffimself a member of the 
Church, and recognized all other members, all Jews, 
making no difference among them, as his brethren. 
He corrected their errors, instructing, admonishing, 
and reproving those He met with who needed such 
teachings and admonitions ; but as to any special so- 
ciety beginning in a nucleus of a few persons, such an 
idea is not hinted at in Scripture. He had twelve 
special disciples for a special purpose, but quite a dif- 
ferent one from that supposed by the Archbishop. 
The special office of the apostles, and reason for their 
separation or distinction from other Church members, 
was not to organize a Church, for this they did not 
do ; but that they should form in themselves an in- 
tensified focal centre of faith in the personal Christ- 
ship of the man Jesus ; that this fact, not having 



138 The City of God, 

anything to do with doctrines or Church rules, might 
be rationally and authoritatively spread and diffused 
throughout the Church. This was the peculiar busi- 
ness of the apostles. They neither made a new 
Church nor preached a new religion. 

304. " The Jews expected a Christ who should be 
a heaven-sent king of the Jews." (^Kingdom of 
Christ, p. 17.) 

It is indeed remarkable that such a writer should 
make so prominent an allusion to this oft-repeated as- 
sertion that the Jews looked for a temporal Saviour. 
It is quite a possible thing that there may have been 
some persons then, as now, who may have had very 
erroneous notions about the Saviour. If there were 
any such persons, we know that such belief was con- 
trary to their religion, for we can refer to that ver- 
hatim any moment. But what is the evidence of any 
such belief among the Jews ? Next to none. There 
is a very incidental remark in John vi. 15, that some 
few porsons just- then, in the excitement of the 
moment, would have made Him a king. But that 
such a belief existed to any considerable extent, 
or amounted to anything, there is not the sHghtest 
evidence. 

305. " It appears highly j)robable, I might say 
morally certain, that wherever a Jewish synagogue 
existed, that was brought, the whole or the chief part 
of it, to embrace the gospel, the apostles did not there 
so much form a Church (or congregation : ecclesia^ 
as make an existing congregation Christian, by in- 
troducing the Christian sacraments and worship, and 
establishing whatever regulations were requisite for 
the newly adopted faith ; leaving the machinery 
(if I may so speak) of government unchanged ; the 



Errors of Authors. 139 

rulers of sjmagogues, elders, and other officers, 
(whether spmtual, or ecclesiastical, or both) being 
already provided in the existing institutions. And 
it is likely that several of the earliest Christian 
churches did originate in this way ; that is, that they 
were converted synagogues^ which became Christian 
churches as soon as the members, or the main part 
of the members, acknowledged Jesus as Messiah." 
( Whately's Kingdom of Christy p. 29.) 

Coming from such a man, this is most remarkable. 
I inquire, when a synagogue was thus brought to em- 
brace the gospel, what did any of them embrace ? 
what doctrine, tenet, rule of Church or of life, that 
they had not always embraced? They embraced 
nothing. And worship. What new worship was 
introduced ? None. And establishing whatever reg- 
ulations were requisite for the newly adopted faith. 
What were those regulations ? and what the newly 
adopted faith ? As to the likelihood that several of 
the earliest Christian churches originated in this 
way, it is certain that no Christian churches origi- 
nated at all in that way, in any other sense than they 
do now. It is equally certain, however, that there 
was a pecuharity in one vitally important thing in 
the Church, just at that period, that never could oc- 
cur at any other. It became necessary for the Church 
to recognize Jesus as Christ. And this, as any one 
may see in a moment, necessitated a change in the 
outward mode of taking the sacrament. That is all 
there was of it. The synagogues, i. e., the churches, 
that recognized that fact were true churches. Those 
that refused were not. 

306. George Benson's First Planting of the Chris- 
tian Religion says, " It was almost fifteen hundred 



140 The City of God. 

years before tiiis, and on this very day of the year, 
that the law was given by God from Mount Sinai, 
in the sight and hearing of all Israel, .... and 
now the new law of grace is given to the apostles." 

This lesson, with others quite as bad, is published 
by the Methodist Sunday-school Union, in a Sunday- 
school book called " Lives of the Apostles." The 
title of the book is enough to condemn it. And thus 
it is that our children suffer. 

307. Whately's Errors of Romanism, p. 13, says, 
" In treating of all these points, I shall adhere to the 
plan hitherto pursued, namely, of contemplating the 
errors of the Romanists, not with a view to our own 
justification in withdrawing from their communion." 

What does he mean by withdrawing from their 
communion ? These are important words, involv- 
ing a vital principle. It is to be feared that Protes- 
tantism is not well understood by Protestants. In 
what sense did Protestants withdraw from anybody's 
communion ? Did Protestants withdraw from the 
Church and set up another Church ? Most assuredly 
I do not so understand it. I understand that Prot- 
estants merely protested and turned away from cer- 
tain practices and doctrines in the Church which they 
claimed had been surreptitiously foisted upon the 
Church by certain officers thereof, contrary to the 
Scriptures, they themselves remaining all the while 
in the Church, but following Scriptural doctrines and 
practices. Protestants, most assuredly, did not pro- 
test against the Church, but against certain unlaw- 
ful things in it. This they did, most certainly, not 
for the purpose of going out, but in order that they 
might rightfully remain in. The Reformation was 
a reformation of the Church ; and if Papists would 



Errors of Authors, 141 

not reform and discontinue their unlawful practices, 
the Protestants could not help it, and were not re- 
sponsible. 

308. The American Bible Society, heading of 1 
Cor. X., says, " The sacraments of the Jews are types 
of ours." 

It is in the first place not only a comment, but 
a very doubtful one, to say the least, I think, to 
suppose that the first seven verses of this chapter 
treat of sacraments at all. And secondly, it is im- 
possible there can be any sacraments of the Jews 
different from ours. The sacraments of religion per- 
tain to religion wholly, soUdly, and not to different 
states and conditions of the Church. 

309. Elliott on Romanism^ two octavo volumes, 
concedes wholesale, by necessary implication, that 
the errors he refutes might be true ; i. e., he argues 
the main question of history as to whether the Sav- 
iour, in making the Church, incorporated into it this, 
that, or the other feature. Thus the issue he accepts 
does not admit of demonstration, because questions 
of old historic detail never can be settled. His ad- 
mission that Jesus Christ formed the Church at all 
is fatal to his whole argument. 

310. And so we read, " There could be no other 
design in writing the books of the New Testament 
than to preserve the memory of Christ's histqry and 
doctrines." (Vol. i. p. 45.) 

This would be a legitimate conclusion upon the 
hypothesis that it is a divine announcement of a new 
system of doctrines, establishing a new Church. But 
suppose it does neither of these things ; then where is 
this design? 

311. " It is also said, that ' the books of the New 



142 The City of God. 

Testament were not written till long after the estab- 
lishment of Scripture, and therefore Christians had 
not the Bible for their directory and rule.' But the 
binding obligation of the Old Testament remained 
till the crucifixion ; and in the interval the Church 
was favored with the personal presence of the apos- 
tles, whose living voice supplied a rule of faith of 
equal authority with that of Christ." (Page. 57.) 

Will the reader pause here a little. Right here, not 
only Dr. Elliott, but I know not how many others, 
by admitting the Romish excision of Old Testament 
authority, and the necessary supplying of that of 
the new Church m its stead, concede all the ground 
asked for, and all the ground Romanists could need 
or have, on which to build the doctrine of Church 
supremacy and infallibility. And all this is done at 
the expense of the plainest historic truth ! If the 
binding obhgation of the Old Testament remained 
till the crucifixion, and then for near two hundred 
years, or for any time, the Church had no written 
guide, then it is for Protestants to show how and 
when this necessary Church power was removed. 
But there never was any such interregnum at all. If 
the Old Testament authority remained till the cruci- 
fixion, in what has it since rested? This interval, 
conceded by such writers as Dr. Elliott, furnishes 
Romanists the entire ground they stand upon in 
regard to Church power. Protestant writers must 
learn better than this. 

The Old Testament remained in force till the res- 
urrection ; and of course, the meaning is, no longer. 
Who repealed the Old Testament? and how came 
the repeal to take effect just at that time ? If this 
was so, it was physically impossible the whole Church, 



Errors of Authors. 143 

spread as it was over the known world, with no fcicil- 
ities of travel could be informed of it under several 
years. And for the same reason it was impossible 
the apostles could supply the Church by their living 
voice with Scripture direction. Twelve men could 
see but a small portion of the Church. 

Dr. Elliott, in conceding the new Church, gives up 
to the Romanist everything he could desire. We 
must maintain the truth at this important point, and 
let Romanism go down. We have upheld it long 
enough. 

312. " To this we reply, that we find Christ and 
his apostles continually referring to the written word 
of God ; and though they declared many truths not 
contained in the Old Testament, in general they 
only enlarged upon, and more fully, what had been 
formerly written." (Page 83.) 

And yet it is plain there is not such a new truth 
in the New Testament. 

313. Lives of the Apostles^ a Methodist Sunday- 
school book (New York : Lane and Scott), teaches 
children and youths on this wise, page 11 : " And 
how strange, in the view of human wisdom, that such 
instruments sh'ould be employed in establishing a 
new faith." 

This is most remarkable — it is surprising. If the 
author of this book were asked what new faith or 
doctrines were there announced, on a moment's re- 
flection he would be obhged to reply. There were 
none. And yet there the statement stands, year 
after year, to the great injury of multiplied thou- 
sands. 

314. " Matthew, before his conversion, was a pub- 
lican or tax gatherer under the Romans." (Page 
94.) 



144 The City of aod. 

This is a naked assumption, without a particle of 
testimony or even probability to support it. When 
was he converted ? The supposition of some that 
the Saviour selected irreligious men exclusively for 
the peculiar work of the apostleship, since there is 
not a hint to that effect in Scripture, is in the high- 
est degree unreasonable. Most assuredly such a 
thing could not be believed, but on the plainest 
Scripture testimony. 

" Among those who were conyerted were Timo- 
thy's parents, who received and entertained the apos- 
tles in their own house." (Page 206.) 

The Scripture account is widely different. It says 
they were already pious ; that they, as well as Timo- 
thy himself, had become converted long before the 
time here alluded to, through the instrumentahty of 
the Old Testament. We are here told that the Old 
Testament, without a personal knowledge of Jesus or 
the apostles, was sufficient to make one wise unto 
salvation. 

315. Bishop Marvin, on Romanism^ a most supe- 
rior treatise on ecclesiastical science, p. 79, says, 
" Eleven men, without prestige, without resources, 
ignorant and despised, on a mountain of Galilee, re- 
ceived orders to make conquest of the world ! " 

Just exactly in the same sense that Bishop Marvin 
received orders, in Missouri, to do the very same 
thing, and in no other sense. The instructions given 
to the apostles, as mentioned in the last of Matthew, 
were in no proper sense a commission. The same 
authority was abundantly possessed and considerably 
exercised before, hundreds and even thousands of 
years before. It was not a commission personal to 
the apostles themselves; for they had the same au- 



Errors of Authors. 145 

thority before. It was such instructions to ministers 
as might be properly given at any time, but were 
peculiarly useful and appropriate just then, a brief 
notice or outline of which is recorded by the Apostle. 
The eleven men were commissioned to inform and 
certify and prove -to the Church then existing, and 
to the world, by their personal knowledge, that Jesus 
was Christ, the well-known Chiist of the Chm-ch. 
That was their commission ; and, vitally important 
and signally necessary as it was, it was all that was 
pecuUar in their ministry. As to doctrines, they 
were to preach those of the Bible, then, before, and 
now preached by all true ministers. The certain in-' 
formation is, that thousands upon thousands, and 
myriads of the Church received their testimony about 
Jesus gladly, and it is likely that these embraced a 
full half or more of the Church in that age. The 
other half, refusing to acknowledge Christ in Jesus, 
apostatized. 

316. Rabbi Raphall, in his Post-Biblical History 
of the Jews (Appleton, 1866, vol. ii. p. 373), says, 
" It was during the administration of Pontius Pilate 
that the events related in the historic books of the 
Christian Scriptures are said to have occurred ; and it 
was from before his tribunal that the founder of the 
Christian faith was led forth to execution. We do 
not feel called upon to enter into this subject, for at 
its origin and during its infancy, Christianity has no 
claim on the attention of the Jewish historian." 

This brings out the gist and vital point of our 
controversy with modern Jews. If Jesus was the 
founder of the Christian faith, a religious faith new 
to the Jewish Scriptures, which had then and there 
its origin and its infancy, then it seems to me the 

10 



146 The City of God. 

modern Jew cannot be jostled from his position. He 
claims validity for his faith only on the ground of its 
identity with the acknowledged Scriptures, and that 
Christianity is new ; and if this is so, then, I ask, on 
what ground can Christianity be defended ? 

317. '•'- And thenceforward (after the Babylonian 
captivity) imtil the present day, the descendants of 
Jacob are called Jews." {Union Bih. Dictionary^ 
art. " Jew.") 

No, the many multitudes, thousands, and myriads 
of them who acknowledged Jesus as Chiist, were 
called Christians first at Antioch, and their descend- 
ants have been so called ever since. 

318. Dr. Hales says, " All the legal dispensation 
was originally designed to be superseded by the new 
and better covenant of the Christian dispensation." 

If the Doctor had undertaken to explain precisely 
what he meant by legal dispensation, he would have 
discerned his error. 

319. Schottgen says the proposition of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews is this: '•^ Jesus of Nazareth is the true 
God, And in order to convince the Jews of this 
proposition, the Apostle urges but three arguments : 
1st, Christ is superior to angels ; 2d, He is superior 
to Moses ; 3d, He is superior to Aaron." 

Then the Apostle was a poor logician. Proof of 
these things could not prove the proposition. To 
prove that Christ was superior to angels, to Moses, 
and to Aaron, would not prove that Jesus was Christ. 
It would not prove anything about Jesus. No Jew 
before the great apostacy that occurred at this time, 
and out of the apostacy, ever denied or doubted the 
unUmited superiority of Christ. That was not the 
question now. The only question now was, whether 



Errors of Authors. 147 

Jesus was Christ. This was stoutly affirmed and 
stoutly denied. It was what Paul, or whoever wrote 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, proves so well. 

320. Dr. Lightfoot repeatedly speaks of the Church 
in Judea in the apostles' days as consisting mainly of 
" converted Jews." 

How could they be converted as Jews, when they 
had not apostatized ! 

321. '•'-As touching the law, he was blameless, but 
was an inveterate enemy to Christianity." (^Henry^s 

Com.^ 

Blameless, tried by divine revelation, and yet an 
inveterate enemy to Christianity. So God's law ap- 
proves of inveterate enmity to Christianity ! 

322. Bishop Hobart says, " The Christian Church 
was founded by bishops, because the apostles, who 
were bishops, were the first preachers of the gospel 
and planters of the churches." 

No ; the prophets were preachers of the gospel 
and planters of, or at least ministers in, the same 
Church, long before. 

323. Fleetwood, in his Life of Christ, says Paul 
was " converted to the Christian faith," and " from 
the Jewish religion." 

But it would be plainer and better to say he was 
restored to the true faith from which he had aposta- 
tized. He was certainly converted back to the faith 
he nominally professed before. 

324. Dr. Sherlock says, ^' The first promise of God 
made to Adam was the promise of a Saviour." 

Gen. iii. 15 does not promise a Saviour ; it pro- 
claims a present Saviour then furnished. The prom- 
ise referred only to the human appearance and phys- 
ical or visible work. 



148 The City of God. 

325. " Now it was the very essence of the gospel, 
in the apostolic sense of that expression, — Christy 
died for our sins according to the Scriptures." (N. 
Newton, in Brit. Pulpit.^ 

Certainly ; but before these historic events, it was 
just as much the essence of gospel truth that He 
would die for our sins according to the Scriptures. 

326. Dr. Samuel Clarke says, " till the kingdom 
of Christ shall be gloriously manifested in the final 
destruction of the nation." 

It would be hard to believe, without at least some 
proof, that the merciful kingdom of Christ could be 
gloriously manifested in the destruction of a nation. 

327. On Matt. iii. 1, Mr. Jacobus says, " Baptism 
formerly admitted proselytes to the Jewish religion ; 
now it admitted Jews to the gospel rehgion." 

And yet you say there is but one religion. How 
are we to understand you ? 

328. Mr. Alex. Campbell, in commenting on Luke 
xix. 11-15, says, " It was impossible that the reign 
of Heaven could literally commence ' till Jesus was 
glorified,' received the promise of the Holy Spirit, 
was made Lord and Christ, and sat down with his 
Father on his throne." 

Mr. Campbell was a logical debater of high order ; 
but logic, the highest and completest, furnishes not 
the least assistance to a man with false facts. How 
does Mr. Campbell know that God could not reign on 
earth, through the Christship, before Jesus was glori- 
fied ? Now, I undertake to say, that it is well 
known to all Christians, and denied by none, not 
even Mr. Campbell himself, that Jehovah did so 
reign on earth for the space of four thousand years. 
The entire doctrine taught by Mr. Campbell is based 



Errors of Authors, 149 

upon this naked assumption. The visibility of 
Christ's work and humiliation is intended to pro- 
duce effects upon us, not to enable God to do so and 
so. Suppose Jesus had suffered as He did, and the 
thing, like many other historic facts, had not been 
known — it was lost to history ; what purpose would 
it have served ? None. 

329. Bishop Warburton, in his Divine Legation of 
Moses^ says, " When Christianity arose, though on 
the foundation of Judaism, it was at first received by 
pagan writers with complacency." 

The pagan writers of that age saw, because it was 
apparent, that the separation of Jews and Christians, 
as the two parties came to be called along in the age 
succeeding the crucifixion, was in consequence of dif- 
ference of belief about the true character of Jesus who 
was crucified by Pontius Pilate, the former holding 
Him an impostor, the latter a divine personality. 
They saw it as it was, a separation of former friends, 
• now very hostile to each other as to this matter of 
separation. They, not believing in a divine Christ- 
hood at all, would be about as likely to extend com- 
placency to the one as the other. But it is evidently 
irregular to say that Christianity arose on the foun- 
dation of Judaism. Judaism, as it existed before 
the days of Jesus, stood firm, and stands firm to-day. 
It was the new, false Judaism that arose out of, that 
is, branching off from, Christianity. 

330. Olshausen, Acts x. 37, says, " It is not im- 
probable that Cornelius had already heard of Chris- 
tianity, and that the object of his prayers was to ob- 
tain light from above respecting this new religion." 

What new religion ? Can a thousand repetitions 
make a falsehood true ? 



150 The City of God. 

331. Wedeyan Catechism^ No. 3, p. 5, says, " The 
Christian religion is also called ' the gospel,' which 
signifies ' good news.' The Jewish religion is called 
' the law.' " 

So our children suffer. 

332. Again : " The covenant under the law was 
made specially with the Jews ; but under the gospel 
with both Jews and Gentiles." 

So our children suffer. 

333. History of the Christian Churchy by Dr. 
Hare, says, " The Church was originally founded by 
the Spirit, which proceeded from Jesus." 

Then it is indeed a new Church, with a new, and 
consequently a false religion. 

334. The '' first section " of " Ancient Church His- 
tory " according to Dr. Hare, extends " from Christ 
to Constantine." (Page 7.) 

So, before that time there being no Church, of 
course it had no history ! 

335. Lord Lyttleton on the Conversion of Paul, 
p. 142, says, " The sect he embraced was under the 
greatest and most universal contempt of any in the 
world." 

Everybody knows that the sect he embraced was 
the regular Church of the Old Testament, the Church 
of Moses, of the prophets, and of this present day. 

336. Mr. John Fletcher (^Cheeks, vol. iii. p. 140) 
says, " God having then prepared to take the Gen- 
tiles into the covenant of peculiarity," etc. 

That implies, and is understood to mean, whether 
Mr. Fletcher so meant it or not, that up to this 
period people out of the Church were not called, or 
required to be religious. Gentiles, those out of the 
Church, were not till now called to be religious ! 



Errors of Authors. 151 

And yet everybody knows that the Old Testament 
Scriptures in many places call upon all men every- 
where, in the most unlimited manner, to come and 
be religious. Does not everybody know that salva- 
tion was always offered to all men ? 

337. Dr. Jenks, editor of Comprehensive Com- 
mentary^ in a note to Preface to Acts, says, " The 
claim of the Gentiles to admission into the Church 
was disputed by the Jews." 

It is remarkable a man should so write, when 
everybody laiows it was always the law of the Church, 
and well understood, to take in everybody from with- 
out. Still we are bewildered with such wild remarks. 

338. Trench on Miracles^ p. 53, speaks of " a 
rigid monotheistic religion Kke the Jewish." 

Monotheism is the simple religion of one deity, 
and is generally used to describe some of the various 
forms of idolatry. The term is never applied to true 
religion. I know of nothing ever written, better cal- 
culated to degrade the Old Testament revelation. 

339. Paley (^Evidences^ p. 489) says, " A relig- 
ion which now possesses the greatest part of the 
civilized world unquestionably sprung up at Jerusa- 
lem at this time." 

On a moment's reflection no Christian can believe 
it. If admitted, it proves the truth of the modem 
Jewish religion conclusively. The simple and indis- 
putable truth is, that the only religion that sprung 
up at this time was that of the denying, apostatizing 
Jews. 

340. Again he says, " The apostles were the origi- 
nal preachers of the religion." 

Then what religion did the prophets preach ? 

341. Again (page 488) : "A Jewish peasant 
changed the religion of the world." 



152 The City of aod. 

So far from it He always appealed to Scripture, 
always declaring He changed nothing ; as did the 
apostles also. And the fact, as palpable as the exist- 
ence of the New Testament, is that it contains not 
one new doctrine. Paley's declaration is exactly the 
ground of the modern Jewish religion, and the only 
polemical ground they claim to occupy. 

342. Knapp's Christian Theology^ p. 469, says, 
" Christians took the word (Church) from the Jews." 

How could that be when the identical persons you 
call Christians are the very self-same persons for- 
merly called Jews ? 

343. Dr. Reinhard QKnapfs Theoh, p. 339) says, 
" Jesus Christ taught the people especially the love 
of God and our neighbor in opposition to Jewish 
exclusiveness." 

Yes, in opposition to any errors He met with, but 
in accordance with the Jewish religion ; ^. e., the re- 
ligion of the Church. 

344. " That Jesus might be shown to be the true 
Messiah or Christ in opposition to the unbelief of the 
Jews," etc. (^BensoTi's Com,^ Matt. i. 1.) 

^ut there was no such wholesale unbelief of the 
Jews. They divided on that question ; and while 
the New Testament says very httle about the numer- 
ical strength of the unbeHeving party, it says very 
much about the great multitudes of the believing 
party. The probability is, that the beheving party 
was the larger one. No unbelief was ever attributed 
to them. 

345. On Luke xiv. 24, Benson says, " Many of 
the Jews became members of the Church of Christ." 

As if there were two different churches. Becom- 
ing members of the Church of Christ was simply 



Errors of Authors. 153 

remaining steadfast in the Church where they were 
born. They continued in the Church of their 
fathers. 

346. Benson says the book of Acts '' contains a 
history of Christ's infant Church." 

When it is palpable there never was any such 
infant Church. 

347. Dr. Hunter, of London QSacred Biography^ 
p. 476), says, " John saw the divine origin of Chris- 
tianity demonstrated by its success." 

No, this demonstration was had several thousand 
years before John lived. 

348. Dr. Stier's Words of the Lord Jesus tells us 
about " the infancy of the Church," '' the gospel 
foundation," the " beginning," " new Church," 
" primitive Church," etc. On Matt. v. 17, he speaks 
of "the Church or congregation hereafter to he 
built:' 

Very strange ! I hope such errors may be cor- 
rected. Let the religion of .the Old Testament, call 
it by what name you will, be identical with the 
Christianity of the New, as it afterwarHs came to be 
called ; let religious errors be distinguished from the 
religion itself; and then let the Church continue 
smoothly and uninterruptedly on, without making a 
new one, in violation of the plain history in the case ; 
and the great sectarian warfare as to how it was 
made will cease, bigotry and exclusiveness will have 
but little ground to stand upon, the whole Church 
will breathe more freely, and religion have a much 
fairer chance of success. 

349. " Such was the constitution of the Church in 
its infancy, when its assemblies were neither numerous 
nor splendid." (^Mosheim.) 



154 The City of God, 

Most of the popular error on this subject has 
sprung from expressions like this from leading 
historic writers. That the Church had no such 
beginning is so apparent as to need no more than a 
suggestion. 

350. Powell on Apostolical Succession is an Eng- 
lish work, written about forty or fifty years ago, and 
has been several times republished in this country. 
It is used largely as a text-book by the Methodist 
Episcopal churches. This last named fact is re- 
markable, seeing its teachings are so widely at vari- 
ance with the laws and usages of these churches. 

This entire essay of 350 pages assumes, as a mat- 
ter not questioned, that Jesus Christ organized the 
Church de novo in every respect, and prescribed its 
law of government, fixing the ofl&cial functions of its 
different classes of ministers, etc. It does not ques- 
tion the doctrine of apostolic succession, but only that 
of Episcopal succession, as claimed by High Church 
prelatists. This distinction is important. The for- 
mer claims, in order to a valid ministry, a succession 
of ordinations from the apostles down ; the latter, 
that it be confined exclusively to bishops. 

Page 59 : " Now, it must clearly appear to an un- 
biased mind, from Acts xx. 17-20, that the Church 
of Ephesus was governed by a number of presby- 
ters, identical with bishops.'^'' 

Suppose it was, what does that prove about 
churches now ? The inference intended is, that 
therefore Jesus Christ, in framing the Church law, 
gave presbyters the same powers as bishops, and so 
all churches must be so governed. But suppose we 
have no divine law on the subject, then what does it 
prove ? It proves a historic fact of no more impor- 



Errors of Authors, 155 

tance now, than the geography of Ephesus, nor so 
much. 

Page 70 : " It is remarkable that, in the constitu- 
tion of the Christian ministry, and in the government 
of the Christian Church, our Lord seems studiously 
to have avoided introducing anything like the priest- 
hood of Aaron and the Mosaic dispensation and 
ritual." 

This old song of new ministry and new Church is 
on nearly every page of this book, in some form, and 
is the basis of every argument in it. Then, if it is 
wholly based upon a myth, might it not be well to 
ask, of what use is it ? 

351. Page 86 : " Bishops and presbyters have the 
SAME QUALIFICATTOKS. Bishops and presbyters 
have the same duties. Bishops and presbyters 
have the same power and authority.'''' 

Whether these rules are the law in Mr. Powell's 
church, or were when he wrote, I may not be pre- 
sumed to know ; but everybody knows that none of 
these rules have, or ever had, any sort of application 
to any of the Methodist churches in America. In 
these churches, bishop and presbyter, or elder, as they 
are generally called, are as distinct, both by law 
and usage, in qualifications, in ordinations, in duties, 
and in power and authority, as are class-leaders and 
bishops. 

352. Page 88 : " However, all the difference cer- 
tainly appears in favor of the divine right of the 
superiority of presbyters over bishops." 

Any sort of divine right, in these premises, of 
course means that Jesus Christ prescribed these 
things for the government of all Christian churches 
in all time. Then I know not where you would find 



156 The City of aod, 

a true Churcli. Certainly not among the Methodist 
churches of America. He proves vastly too much. 

353. Page 299 : " The New Testament lays down 
GENERAL principles^ but gives NO paeticular 
FORM of Church government in detail." 

Will any man state any one of these general prin- 
ciples of Church government laid down in the New 
Testament for the entire Church ? The thing is 
ridiculous, because it supposes and means a new 
Church. 

354. " The people ruling the minister^ is the 
SHEEP RULING the shepherd ! " (^Ibid.} 

And yet nothing is more common in most, if not 
all the Christian churches around us. Several of 
them have an equal number^ of laymen with minis- 
ters in their general legislature. 

355. On pages 300, 301, and many other places, 
we are told much about " Scriptural Episcopacy," 
" Scriptural Church polity," " divine right of all 
true ministers," etc., always meaning that these 
things are enacted in the Church government then 
framed by the Saviour for the entire Church ! The 
book abounds, by scores and by hundreds, in such 
errors as these. 

356. It will be noted that all Roman Catholic and 
High Church writers of all classes plant themselves 
fundamentally on the assumed formation of a new 
Church by the Saviour. This is of course their only 
pedestal. Later writers copy from older ones. So 
we hear Bishop Taylor, High Churchman in 1642, 
in Episcopacy Asserted^ say, " Christ did institute 
apostles and presbyters." He then goes on to ex- 
plain the precise power conferred on each, in govern- 
ing the churches. How much power He thus con- 



Errors of Authors. 157 

ferred upon laymen, I do not see stated. Might it 
not be well for those who have laymen in their 
Church legislatures to inquire ? 

357. So, Dr. Hicks (^Dignity of Epis. Ordei\ p. 
191, London, 1707) ; " Bishops are appointed to suc- 
ceed the apostles, and like them to stand in Christ's 
place and exercise his power," etc. 

358. So, Dr. Hook, late vicar of Leeds, in Two 
Sermons on the Churchy etc. : " Some persons seem 
to think that the government of the Church was es- 
sentially different in the days of the apostles from 
what it is now," etc. 

Then we have long explanations, showing that 
as the Saviour first planted the Church and fixed its 
government, so it must ever remain ! 

359. All Baptistic, prelatical, and Romish High 
Church writers stand right here. This is obviously 
the only place where they can stand. But for lack 
of time, they could be quoted by hundreds. All 
High Church arguments are of course drawn from 
this point. A Church in the nature of a corpora- 
tion, established by outside authority, under a pre- 
scribed law of government, is, and nothing else is, the 
essential High Church idea. This is apparent by a 
glance at the Romish or other High Church argu- 
ments anywhere. 

360. Scott's Bible, Pref. to Acts, says of the apos- 
tles : " They had all the wisdom and folly, the learn- 
ing and the ignorance, the religion and the irrehgion 
of the whole world to encounter." 

Such extravagance in a sober, theological book is 
beyond the pale of excuse. So far from being true, 
everybody knows on a moment's reflection, that up 
to the time of the death of Jesus, there was nothing 



158 The City of aod, 

like general or popular opposition to either the Sav- 
iour or the apostles in any way, or about anything. 
The only opposition they met with was local, slight, 
transitory, and numerically feeble. They all pro- 
fessed exactly* the same rehgion. After that event, 
when the Church divided by the apostacy of those 
who denied Christship in Jesus, there is no pretense 
of opposition to the apostles, except by the apostates. 
Among all those millions, formerly called Jews, now 
called Christians, there is no pretense of opposition 
at any time before or after the separation. Outside, 
among heathen people, there was always opposition. 
The whole world to encounter, indeed ! There 
was not a day in that age, that the whole Church, 
numbering millions, were not the fast friends of the 
apostles, so far as they were known to the Church. 

361. Again, " The Old Testament is all types and 
shadows, and prophecies to be fulfilled." 

And Baron Munchausen was the greatest traveller 
of his time. 

362. Smith'' s Dictionary of the Bible ^ art. 
" Church," says : " From the gospel, then, we learn 
that Christ was about to establish his heavenly king- 
dom on earth, which was to be the substitute for the 
Jewish Church and kingdom, now doomed to destruc- 
tion." 

It is impossible such a statement can bear the least 
touch of sober examination. The kmgdom of Christ 
on earth, which I suppose means the divine system o£ 
government and salvation, has, naturally and neces- 
sarily, some features since the divine incarnation dif- 
ferent from what it could have before ; but that this 
kingdom or system began, or was about to be es- 
tablished, in the days of Jesus, is preposterous. No 



Errors of Authors, 159 

Christian ever believed it. It is the regular built 
hobgoblin of infidelity. And as to the Jewish Church, 
that is, the Church of God on earth, being doomed to 
destruction, the thought looks as impious as mythical. 
Let the reader be reminded that there is not an ex- 
pression in Scripture that gives the least license to 
the supposition that the Saviour, the apostles, or any- 
body else, had anything against the Church, call it 
Jewish, then and theretofore existing. Did Jesus 
excommunicate Church members by the million and 
depose ministers by the thousand, against whose piety 
nothing is intimated ; persons whom He never saw, 
who had never, or but barely, seen or heard of Him ? 
Did He turn out of the Church pious men and women 
wholesale, without their knowledge, without a reason 
or pretense of reason ? Most of the Church, or at 
least much of it, lived a long way from the little 
province of Palestine where Jesus travelled and 
preached ; and we are asked to beheve that hundreds 
of thousands, nay millions of people, many of whom 
we are obhged to believe were pious, came to learn 
that years ago they were all turned out of the Church ! 
And for what ? No man can assign a reason, good 
or bad. The supposition is recklessly extravagant 
and wildly fabulous, to say nothing of its high and 
intemperate injustice. 

363. And so we have, in hundreds of places through 
this recently published Dictionary of Dr. Smith, the 
natural offshoots of this fabled new Church in such 
expressions as " Mother Church of Jerusalem," 
" Future Church," '' The birthday of the Christian 
Church," " Infant Church," " Infant Society," " One 
hundred and twenty members at first," with many 
expressions of the sort, all calculated to mislead, and 



160 The City of God. 

giving direct support to the Romish High Church 
ideas of the Church. 

364. Mr. Alex. Campbell, in setting up his exclu- 
sive system of High Church immersion, lays his corner- 
stone in this dual idea of the Church or kingdom of 
Christ. On almost every page of his Christian Sys- 
tem he makes this doctrine prominent. The system 
under Moses was a distinct and exclusive system. It 
terminated, and the new kingdom was ushered in, on 
the day of the ascension, and at the precise period 
that Jesus got " out of sight." " They lived under a 
constitution of laiv^ we under a constitution of favor, 
.... Under the government of the Lord Jesus there is 
an institution for the forgiveness of sins." (Page 180.) 

This is naked mythology, without the pretense of 
even historic appearance. 

365. Page 171, we are told, " So soon as He re- 
ceived the kingdom from God his Father, He poured 
out the blessings of his favor upon his friends ; He 
fulfilled all his promises to tke apostles, and forgave 
three thousand of his fiercest enemies.''^ 

When there is not the slightest historic pretense 
that any of them ever had the thought of opposition 
to Him or his Messiahship in any way. 

366. " The temple was the house of God to the 
very close of the life of Jesus. For it was not till 
the Jewish ministry conspired to kill Him that He 
deserted it." (Page 165.) 

Mr. Campbell is not the only one who has com- 
mitted this blunder about the temple. He means 
the old Solomon's temple at Jerusalem. But in that 
age of the world this temple and this Jewish ministry 
had no connection with the Jewish Church as a whole, 
though no doubt it claimed to have. It was the place 



Errors of Authors. 161 

of festive Avorship of the Judean portion of the Church 
only. The Samaritans, ignoring it, had their temple 
on Mount Gerizim. And the Hellenists, supposed 
to be larger .than both the others, ignoring it, had 
theirs in HeliopoUs in Greece. These three portions 
or denominations of the Church in that age were 
related much as the Romanists, Methodists, and Bap- 
tists are now. 

367. " Judas Iscariot was dead before the apostolic 
commission was given. Judas in all probabihty never 
heard of a gospel ministry. He did not hve in the 
gospel dispensation." (^Abbey's Ecd. Constitution^ 
p. 299.) 

This is most remarkable, since it is quoted from a 
book the main object of which is to repudiate this very 
idea of a new system of rehgion introduced by Jesus 
Christ. This very book claims to find the true eccle- 
siastical law in the several churches themselves, and 
not in any general prescribed law ; and that the re- 
hgion of the Church, its doctrines and morals, were 
always the very same since a Saviour was furnished 
in the days of Adam. It is strange then that a man 
holding such sound doctrines should be guilty of the 
above expression. It shows, at least, what most of 
us have not learned, that it is hard to get out from 
under the influence of early teachings. Educated to 
a dogma, though a fallacy as palpable as the sun, it 
is hard to get clear from it. This, then, no doubt is 
reaUy the case with most of the authors herein 
quoted.^ 

1 When this was wTitten a few years ago, it was expected to be pub- 
lished anonymously; and on changing its form in this respect, I have 
thought it best, as well as most fair, to let it stand. On looking back 
twenty or twenty-five years, I find my own emancipation from the early 
teachings of the errors here complained of has been slow and grad- 
H 



162 The City of God. 

368. Dr. Chapman, of Lexington, Ky., 1844, in 
Sermons on the Qhureh^ says : " I cannot but flatter 
myself that the last discourse dehvered upon these 
words presented the most clear and invincible testi- 
mony from the primitive fathers of the divine origin 
of our Episcopal ministry ; a ministry comprehending 
the three distinct orders of bishops, presbyters, and 
deacons." 

Now, it is not pretended that any testimony is 
brought forward here to prove this point other than 
historic testimony that such was the case in the 
churches in and near the time of the apostles. All the 
High Church arguments on this question are of this 
character. I say all. Then upon the hypothesis that 
Jesus set up the Church anew and prescribed the 
functions of its ministry, i. e., the government of the 
Church, historic proof of this fact would go very far, 
if it would not be conclusive as to the government a 
Church must have. But it is easily seen that this 
assumption is necessary to give any force at all to the 
testimony, however much of it there might be. The 
proof proves nothing without this assumption. This 
point is sweeping as well as vital. Take away the 
assumption that Jesus made a new Church and new 
ministry, and in all the scores and hundreds of 
volumes written to prove what High Churchmen call 
Episcopacy, there is not one word of argument or 
testimony, or pretense of either, on the subject. 

369. The closing chapter of nine pages of Powell 

■„ on Apostolic Succession is an attempted refutation of 

Dr. Hook's remark that the Church, as in the hands 

of Protestants, remained the same after as before the 

Reformation. 

ual. No large stride seems to have been made at any one time. I sin- 
cerely hope and pray that others may learn more rapidly. 



Errors of Authors. 163 

Some debaters think they have only to deny and 
denounce everything stated by an opponent. How 
could Protestants claim to be a Church of God on 
any other hypothesis ? Did Luther and his associ- 
ates set up a new Church ? If this is Mr. Powell's 
notion of Church organism, then indeed not only was 
the Chm'ch in the hands of those Jews called Chris- 
tians first in Antioch, and their successors, a new 
Church, but every modification of Church govern- 
ment makes a new Church. And then the Presby- 
terian Church under Calvin, the Methodist Church 
outwardly improved by Wesley, were new churches ; 
the Methodists of America make a new Church 
every four years ; and so of all other churches ; and 
so we have a thousand new churches everywhere. 
And the Church of God is anything or nothing, with 
no identity or test of vahdity ! 

370. Evidences of Christianity^ by Mark Hopkins, 
D. D., is a school book somewhat used as a text- 
book. The " Christianity " of which it gives evi- 
dence " was an aggressive uncompromising religion. 
It attacked every other form of religion whether Jew- 
ish or pagan and sought to destroy it." (Page 44.) 

We are not concerned to know what some hyper- 
critic might construe Dr. Hopkins to mean by the 
Jewish religion. We know what everybody else un- 
derstands by that expression. The religion of the 
Jews at the period alluded to is not equivocal. We 
have it verbatim. What anybody then or now mis- 
took it to be is another matter. So we teach in our 
schools, that Jesus and the apostles were uncom- 
promising in their aggressive attacks upon the relig- 
ion of the Old Testament ! They sought to destroy 
it! 



164 The City of God. 

371. At page Q^ we are told that " the religion of 
Christ " was " heralded by prophecy." 

No ; it was taught by all the prophets. 

372. " We defy him to point out a single duty, 
even whispered by nature, which is not also incul- 
cated in the New Testament." (Page 102.) 

Why this slur upon the Old Testament ? 

373. " Several of the fundamental principles of 
Christian morality, such as if adopted would change 
the face of society, were original with Christ," — 
meaning Jesus. (Page 104.) 

No man can point out one. Had Christ better 
morahty than that which is divine ? What principle 
of Christianrty is original? 

374. He says Jesus Christ had " no education." 
(Page 105.) 

Where does he get his information ? 

375. At page 169 we are told this new Christian- 
ity " imposes upon man some new duties." 

What ones ? He cannot answer. 

376. " The Jews were divided into three great 
sects, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and Essenes. 
(Page 190.) 

Such historic ignorance in a man pretending to 
teach is disgraceful. 

377. " The New Testament contains a fair and 
plausible account of the origin of the Church." 
(Page 244.) 

It is wonderful how men come to believe a thing 
from mere repetition. There is not the slightest al- 
lusion to such a thing. The New Testament con- 
tains an account of the human appearance of Christ 
in the person of Jesus. And this fact, in its very 
nature, necessitates some important modes of teach- 



Error's of Authors. 165' 

ing the same things previously taught ; a very dif- 
ferent thing from a new Church. You might as 
well say the introduction of globes and telescopes 
originates new geography and astronomy. 

378. " Eleven men, without learning, wealth, rank, 
or power, subverted the divinely appointed institu- 
tions of Judaism, and overturned the superstitions of 
ages." (Page 344.) 

We are at no loss here to understand what he 
means by Judaism. It is the divinely appointed in- 
stitutions of religion as seen in the Old Testament. 
Those divine appointments were subverted and de- 
mohshed by Christian people ! We also learn that 
the superstitions of ages were divinely appointed. 
And our youth are taught to believe it ! 

379. This school book, by a Protestant college 
president, inculcates, all through it, the clumsy idea, 
pernicious and hurtful as it is clumsy, that the rehg- 
ion of post-messianic Jews is the same, intact, as 
that of the Old Testament. No modern Jew could 
or need say more. It repudiates Christianity whole- 
sale, and declares the' modern Jew to have the true 
rehgion. The only fundamental question between 
Christians and modern Jews is, which party main- 
tained and still adheres to the Old Testament. 

The very first and most rudimental thing that 
Christianity does is to affirm that the Jews, who re* 
fuse Jesus as Christ, do by that very act repudiate 
every- vestige of rehgion known to the Old Testa- 
ment. I repeat, every vestige. If any one imagines 
that modern Jews retain any of the religion of the 
Old Testament, let me ask him, Suppose you wholly 
exclude Christ from the Old Testament ; have you 
any true religion left in it ? Every Christian, yea, 



166 The City of Qod, 

and every Jew, will answer — Not a particle. Mod- 
ern Judaism affirms that Christians abandon the re- 
ligion of the Old Testament by foisting an impostor 
into its Christhood ; while Christianity says that 
Jews abandon the Old Testament by repudiating its 
true Christhood. Then the whole question is settled 
in a moment by ascertaining whether Jesus is Christ 
or not. 

380. In the Comprehensive Commentary^ Supple- 
ment, p. 87, we read of Luke : " That he was a 
convert to Christianity from Judaism, however, is 
upon the whole sufficiently evident both from his 
style, and the intimate knowledge which he displays 
of Jewish doctrines and customs." 

Of Luke's youth and early history we know but 
little. That he was of Jewish parentage is quite 
probable if not certain ; but that he was a convert 
to Christianity from Judaism is next to impossible ; 
at least there is no probability of it. A convert to 
Christianity from Judaism could only mean one who, 
like Paul, denied Jesus, and then was converted 
from the apostacy. Of this there is not the slight- 
est intimation in the case of Luke. The faith called 
Judaism before the apostacy was and is Christianity. 
The faith of the Old Testament is the faith of the 
New. It might be asked when John the Baptist, 
or James, or Peter, was converted to Christianity. 
They were converted before the true faith or Juda- 
ism, of the Old Testament, began to be called Chris- 
tianity. 

381. Again, the Camp. Com.^ on Galatians, says, 
" What these false teachers chiefly aimed at was to 
draw them (the Galatians) off from the truth, par- 
ticularly in the great doctrines of justification, which 



Errors of Authors. 167 

they greatly perverted by asserting the necessity of 
joining the observance of the law of Moses with 
faith in Christ in order to it." 

That is to say, in other words, To follow the re- 
ligion of the Old Testament in respect to the great 
doctrine of justification is to greatly pervert the 
doctrine as Paul taught it. Then we need to be 
told which is right, the Old Testament or Paul, that 
we may discard the wrong one. No, it is a mistake. 
Plainly stated, it cannot be believed. Paul and the 
law of Moses, as the Old Testament is here called, 
are both right, and both teach the same thing. The 
doctrine of justification, as taught by Paul, is written 
in many places in the Old Testament, and it is be- 
cause it is there written, and for no other reason 
that we know of, that Paul taught it. Paul taught 
the doctrine of justification out of the law of Moses, 
just as everybody does now. He did not therefore 
complain of those teachers for teaching the Old Tes- 
tament doctrine, but for not teaching it. Paul ought 
to be vuidicated against this charge of teaching in 
opposition to the Old Testament ; and revelation 
ought to stand' consistent with itself. 

382. Mr. Watson (Conv., p. 194), speaking of the 
apostles and others who were early convinced of the 
truth of revelation, says, " The most honest and sin- 
cere would, in proportion to their hohesty and sincer- 
ity, require powerful proofs to induce them to ven- 
ture their eternal interests upon a new religion, and 
to renounce that of their fathers.'* 

What ! Does Mr. Watson undertake to teach 
that the apostles renounced the religion of their 
ancestors ? If the apostles renounced the rehgion 
of the prophets, why do not we ? Do we not receive 



168 The City of God, 

their teachings as infallible ? If they renounced the 
Old Testament, what right have we to continue it in 
our Bible ? 

This was not intended as a thrust at religion, for 
we have no truer Christian in the books than Rich- 
ard Watson ; and yet a more deadly blow against 
revelation could scarcely be made. And that it has 
injured religion, as far as it has been noticed and 
believed, cannot be doubted. The .context to this 
remark affords it not the slightest rehef . The faith 
they renounced was the Old Testament wholesale ! 
And this has passed, for lo, these many years, for 
theology ! And the Church to-day is suffering from 
the effects of such blunders. 

383. Dr. Schaff says {Hi%t, Apostolic Oh., p. 137), 
" Our religion indeed, like its founder, is of strictly 
divine origin. It is a new supernatural creation ; a 
miracle in history. Yet its entrance into the world 
is historically connected with the whole preceding 
course of events. It took four thousand years to pre- 
pare humanity to receive it." 

The Almighty is the founder of religion, if that 
term can be properly applied to it 5. but in what 
sense God can be said to be of divine origin is diffi- 
cult to understand. Nor is it easy to see how relig- 
ion can be called a creation, either new or old. It 
is simply a revelation. As to its having required 
four thousand years, or any other number, to prepare 
man to receive it, this is a transparent error. It is 
some of Dr. Schaff's Christologic mythology. Abel, 
Moses, Abraham, and millions of others, would tell 
us otherwise. Revelation tells us that our religion 
was revealed to, and received by Abel. 

384. Dr. Schaff (page 139) says, that " Judaism 



Errors of Authors. 169 

and heathenism were the great religions of antiq- 
uity which served to prepare the world for Chris- 
tianity." And in the next paragraph he says that 
" Judaism is the religion of positive, direct revela- 
tion." 

Now I think it is clear that heathenism never did 
anything to prepare the world for Christianity, or 
did anything in any way promotive of true religion, 
but was always, as it is now, its deadly enemy. 
Indeed, it is impossible, in any view, that heathen- 
ism could prepare anything for Christianity, since 
Christianity is older in the world than heathenism. 
And as to Judaism — or call revelation by what 
name you may — that is Christianity. True, an- 
cient, ante-messianic Judaism is certainly Christian- 
ity, though false, modern Judaism is not. What a 
blind doctor ! creating and aggravating religious 
disease with one hand, while he tries to cure it with 
the other. 

385. Mr. Sawyer, in his Organic Christianity^ 
says, " All men agree that Jesus Christ organized 
the Christian Church ; but the precise constitution 
He gave it, the offices He established in it, and the 
powers attached to those offices, etc. — all these and 
other points are matters in regard to which there is 
great diversity and contrariety of opinion." 

Mr. Sawyer, in his Preface, tells us he writes for 
the " defense of Church democracy." Conceding, 
then, that the above proposition is true, he has cer- 
tainly an easy task to perform. . Concede that, and 
it is almost infinitely easy to prove either Church 
democracy, Church aristocracy, or Church monarchy. 
One form of government is as easily proven as 
another, and nothing can be more easy than to prove 
either. 



170 The City of Qod. 

But Mr. Sawyer did not reflect that the above 
proposition could not possibly be true, because it is 
a contradiction. Either member of the sentence 
might be true, but both cannot, because one denies 
what the other affirms. He says we know that 
Jesus Christ organized the Church, but do not know 
what offices He created, nor what powers He gave 
to them. To organize a Church means to organize 
its government. There is nothing else to organize. 
And to organize a government means to fix its 
offices, or at least the principal ones, and prescribe 
their powers. Government consists ui Legislation, 
Judicature, and Execution ; and so, to organize a 
government, is to establish the offices, and prescribe 
the functions thereof in these departments. To 
know that a government was established is to know 
the very things Mr. Sawyer says are not known. 
He says we agree upon a certain thing, but disagree 
as to all the component parts of it. That is a con- 
tradiction. 

It is granted that a government once formed 
might be modified indefinitely ; that is, its legisla- 
ture might be added to indefinitely, or reduced to 
one person ; and the mode of keeping up the succes- 
sion might be changed. And so of the other ele- 
ments. But to say we do not know of any legisla- 
tive functions established in the Church by the Sav- 
iour, nor any judicial functions, nor any executive 
functions at all, is merely saying, in other words, 
that we have no knowledge of his having organized 
the Church. To know He did the thing is simply 
a knowledge of having done the several things which 
constitute it. 

Now, as Mr. Sawyer's entire argument of near 



Errors of Authors, 171 

five hundred pages, setting up the theory of Church 
democracy, is built upon a fiction, a thing he says we 
do not know ; the exposition of the fiction, the re- 
moval of the single pedestal on which the entire the- 
ory is built, will be the destruction of the argument. 
There, I hold, is a complete answer to his book. 

It is precisely as if one should say that Marc An- 
tony founded the government and city of London, 
and go on with a book full of particulars thereof to 
the present time. Now, if I were to show that Marc 
Antony was never in Britain, that he established no 
government there, then in a single paragraph I have 
answered the entire book. Moreover, in this sup- 
posed government, there was no legislation, no judi- 
cial or executive departments established. Then how 
do we know there was a government ? 

386. Harbaugh says, " In the New Testament, we 
see on almost every page, that Christ came into the 
world to estabhsh a Church or kingdom." ( Union 
with the Churchy p. 76.) 

Yes, if you mean that Christ came into the world 
in the days of Adam. It was to establish his kingly 
rule ; and a Church, z. e., the association of Christians, 
was the natural consequence. 

387. Bishop Stilhngfleet, in the Irenieum, suffers 
himself to be drawn into the inconsistency of suppos- 
ing that the Saviour instituted a new Church. He 
speaks of its " first institution,", of the Saviour's " in- 
stituting his Church," of " setting his Church," etc. 
And on page 201, he concludes the Church was un- 
der no obUgation to form its government according 
to that of the Jewish Church. On page 281, he 
says, " There was nothing in the model of the syna- 
gogue at all repugnant to the doctrine of the gospel, 



172 The City of God. 

or the nature of the constitution of the Christian 
churches." He then copies Tertullian's description 
of the Christian Church and worship, in detail, and 
says he could not have chosen words which would 
better describe the synagogue. 

Then what are we to understand when told that 
the Saviour, or the apostles, formed a new Church ? 
I respectfully submit that if a full and exact de- 
scription of the one is a full and exact description of 
the other, then they are not descriptions of different 
things, but of one and the same thing, under different 
names merely. If from some local cause, either a 
good one or a poor one, the adherents to Jesus in 
this great Church trouble choose to disuse the word 
synagogue as the name of the Church, that does not 
in the least iota necessarily change the Church's 
character. Tlie Bishop shows that the thing — the 
Church — continued the same. Very well, then the 
change was only in the name of it. Nothing could 
be more natural than the continuance of the name 
synagogue by the repudiating party, since, denying 
the incarnation, they continued the ante-incarnate 
modes of teaching. And so the other party must 
needs disuse it to avoid confusion and uncertainty. 
They must needs call their assemblies by some other 
name. The word Church was, however, not used for 
many centuries after. But the thing continued un- 
interruptedly, with no other change than the discon- 
tinuance of a few modes of teaching, or forms of cere- 
monial worship, which, in their nature, were ante- 
incarnate. 

388. Mr. Henry (Com., Acts iv. 32) says, " Mul- 
titudes believed even in Jerusalem ; three thousand in 
one day, five thousand on another, besides those added 
daily," etc. 



Errors of Authors, 173 

To this it miglit first be replied, — Believed what? 
Is it meant that they believed anything contrary to, 
or different from any former belief ? Surely not. 
They now believed that the incarnate appearance of 
the Saviour, formerly anticipated, had been realized. 
This was the belief, and the sole belief, of those eight 
thousand, and other multitudes then spoken of. 

But if Christianity began with eight thousand and 
more, probably ten times that number, how is it said 
that the twelve apostles, almost or quite alone, began 
the Christian warfare with the entire world against 
them ? Hundreds of thousands, or a million or so, is 
a pretty good number to begin with, for almost any 
popular movement. Is it said that these thousands 
and oft-repeated multitudes, great multitudes, and 
myriads, were the early converts from the opposition ? 
The reply then is that there is not the least informa- 
tion, or intimation, in Scripture, that they, or any pf 
them^ ever entertained or put forth sentiments in op- 
position in any way to the teachings of the apostles. 
or the Church now, about the questions then agitat- 
ing the religious world. Indeed, the thing was im- 
practicable in any view. Whatever doubts, fears, 
hopes, or expectations may have been entertained by 
any before, it is certain no one could or did believe 
truly in Jesus, as Christ, before the resurrection. 
No one could beUeve in a crucified and risen Saviour, 
until Jesus was crucified and rose. Nor was it prac- 
ticable then, at the very first, for many to believe, 
because not many could know of it. Like other mat- 
ters of fact, there must be time for the information 
to disseminate. The resurrection was seen by but 
few ; probably less than a thousand altogether. 
Those at a distance could not know it, until they 



174 The City of God. 

had reasonable opportunity. They must not only 
hear of it, but it must be well verified. This could 
not be done in an hour, a day, or a year, nor in less 
than ten or perhaps thirty years or more, to all the 
Church. 

Now the evidence is clear that those Jews, who in 
that age accepted the Christship of Jesus at all, did 
so at the earliest period reasonably practicable. And 
there is no intimation that they ever evinced or enter- 
tained any opposition to the teachings of the Church 
then, or now. To this general rule, Paul was an ex- 
ception. Quite likely there were others in the same 
category, though none others are mentioned. These 
eight thousand gave m their adhesion immediately, 
almost as soon as the apostles themselves did. 

389. Macknight (Pref. to Romans) says : " The 
Judaizing Christians contended that there was no gos- 
pel Church different from the Jewish, .... and on 
the other side of this great controversy stood the 
apostles and others, and all well-informed brethren, 
who, knowing that the Jewish Church was at an end, 
and that the law of Moses was abrogated, strenuously 
maintained that a new Church of God was erected." 

It is unfortunate that such ecclesiastical romance 
was ever ^written, and still more so, that it is put 
forth by men of talent, learning, and piety. We are 
admonished of the facility with which the truth may 
be perverted by a mere thoughtless copjdng from 
others. A moment's reflection will convince any one, 
even moderately acquainted with the New Testament, 
that there is not the slightest semblance of, or pre- 
tense to truth, in anything stated in the above ex- 
tract. If any one doubts this, let him read the New 
Testament from beginning to end, keeping the above 



Errors of Authors. 175 

statement prominently , in view. There was not 
only no such controversy, great or small, in those 
days, but there is not in Romans or elsewhere an 
allusion to any sort of controversy, debate, or differ- 
ence of opinion between anybody about the Church at 
all, or relating to it. There is not a word of his- 
tory to show that anybody in those days saw any- 
thing in the then existing Church, call it Jewish or 
what you may, that needed modification or change. 
And as to a new Church of God, such a thing was 
not dreamed of. I appeal to the book. 

Now this is not a matter of opinion but of fact. 
Then, if I am correct, as any one may ascertain with 
certainty, I ask, who has perverted or misrepresented 
the Scriptures more than Dr. Macknight ? He has 
not done it in this place only, but m hundreds of 
places in his work on the Epistles. I say hundreds, 
and mean hundreds. 

390. " A new commandment I give unto you. That 
ye love one another." (John xiii. 34.) 

This passage has been subject to a singular fortune. 
Mr. R. Watson (^Conversations^ p. 213) explains it 
without any explanation, merely calling it the new 
commandment. Dr. Clarke says the former com- 
mandment on the subject required only that we love 
our neighbors as ourselves, and this new one requires 
that we love our neighbors more than ourselves. 
Doddridge-says that " mutual love is peculiar to the 
Christian dispensation," when everybody knows it is 
part of the decalogue. 

Those who look for a new Church, new religion, 
new terms of salvation, new creation, etc., will nat- 
urally find support in this simple remark of the Sav- 
iour in his teachings. But we are also told there is no 



176 The Qity of Qod 

new commandment. This is all easily understood, it 
seems to me. The divine constitution is stable, con- 
sistent, and harmonious. What is called the giving 
of the Law at Sinai was only the publication of a 
grand constitution of immutable principles making 
up the relation between man and his Maker. It is a 
brief outline of the moral nature of things. It be- 
longs not to times, places, or circumstances, but to 
God and the race of man. But this law is imper- 
fectly understood. To many it is new, at least 
portions of it. At this present day the great law of 
neighborly love is new to many. 

391. ScoWs Com.^ Pref. to Acts, says, " Eleven 
men, obscure and unarmed, with the whole world to 
encounter, produced the most extraordinary revolu- 
tion that ever took place in the moral and rehgious 
state of the world." 

That would be marvelous if it were true. But it 
is marvelous in this, that there is no truth, nor pre- 
tense to truth, in or about it. In the first place, in- 
stead of eleven men to produce this great impression, 
there were at the first thousands upon thousands, 
great multitudes, even myriads, acting with the apos- 
tles, of whom there is not the slightest intimation 
anywhere that they ever encountered the apostles, or 
opposed them or the Saviour in any way whatever. 
And in the second place, instead of producing a rev- 
olution, or essaying to do so, that is the very thing 
and the only thing charged against them at the time 
by their enemies. This was the thing charged 
against them by the mistaken Saul of Tarsus, and by 
the infidel writers of that age. Porphyry, Julian, and 
such men. And this same complaint, and substan- 
tially none other, was continued against Paul after 



Errors of Authors, 177 

his conversion. And how did they meet it? Al- 
ways by a prompt and unquaUfied denial. They de- 
clared they were sustaining the old religion of their 
fathers without change. Strange, that modern writ- 
ers should make the same charges ! 

392. Dr. Paley (^Evid. Chris., p. 488) says, " A 
Jewish peasant changed the religion of the world." 

The very reverse of what is notoriously known to 
be true. The Jewish peasant, meaning our Saviour, 
held firmly and finally, and the apostles after Him, to 
the religion of their fathers, the regular written relig- 
ion of the Church. The only thing He sought to 
change was the religious errors into which many had 
fallen. Who but his enemies ever charged that He 
taught contrary to the teachings of the prophets ? 
I aver that a statement more untrue, or more notori- 
ously untrue than the above, could not be written ! 
The voice of Christendom proclaims it untrue in that 
it recognizes that very identical Old Testament as 
a part of the Christian Bible. It is venerated and 
preached everywhere. 

393. Dr. Stephen Olin {Works, vol. i. p. 259) 
says of Christ, that " He has fulfilled and abolished 
the law of ceremonies." 

That is strange. Why fulfill a law He intended 
to abolish ? and Avhy abolish a law after He had ful- 
filled it ? In the former case He naust have set us 
an example He did not intend us to follow ! And 
in the latter He prohibited us from following the ex- 
ample He intended ! 

394. Alexander's Evidences of Christianity/ is a 
school book, and goes out under the broad endorse- 
ment of the Presbyterian? Board of Publication. In 
it our children are taught that the Jews were rejected, 

12 



178 The City of God. 

and the Gentiles were called in their room. The 
teaching is not that individual Jews were rejected for 
personal wickedness, but that Jews as such, because 
they were Jews, were wholesale, and for that reason, 
cast off utterly from all hope of salvation. 

This doctrine is abhorrent to Christian theology. 
The well known truth is, that hundreds of thousands 
and most probably millions of Jews, all the best por- 
tion of the Church at the time alluded to, were al- 
ways, so far as we know, in good and pious communion 
with God and his Church. Indeed, they solely, for a 
number of years after the -resurrection, constituted 
the Church. They were peculiarly heroic, pious, and 
self-sacrificing Christians. Rejected, indeed ! Never- 
theless many were rejected, but surely not as Jews, 
— not because they were Jews, — but for personal 
wickedness, just as men are always rejected, because 
they reject Christ. 

As to the Gentiles being called, the children would 
be likely to learn from this teaching, in the unquah- 
fied manner in which it is stated, that all Gentiles are 
now brought into the Church. The misteaching on 
this subject is great, and ought to be corrected. 

395. " All the various forms of religion existing 
now, or that have existed in the world, are comprised 
under four denominations, namely. Paganism^ Mo- 
hammedanism^ Deism, and Christianity. I do not 
reckon Judaism among them, because, in its original 
form, it was a part of the true religion, and identified 
with Christianity." QNewcomVs Chris. Bern., p. 8.) 

If Dr. Newcomb had undertaken to point out what 
part of Christianity is found in Judaism, he would 
have discovered his mistake. It is difficult to see 
what the Doctor means by Judaism in its original 



Errors of Authors, 179 

form. It has never changed its form. The Penta 
teuch is now as it was first written ; and it was first 
written as the oral teachings of the Church first were 

396. Dr. John Dick ^Theology, p. 78) says, " In 
the Christian dispensation there are four particulars 
by which it is characterized ; a greater degree of 
Kght, a new system of worship, a more abundant 
affusion of the spirit, and universality." 

Two of those particulars are true, and two are not. 
Since the advent of Christ, and because of his advent 
and teaching, the Church has a greater degree of 
light, and likewise, for the same reasons, it has a more 
abundant affusion of the spirit. But it has no new 
system of worship, nor any universahty it did not 
always possess. The Church has never had any fixed 
system of worship. It has always varied in different 
ages and different countries. There were incidental 
modifications in the times of the apostles, but not 
greater than at other times, and as to universality, it 
was always unlimitedly universal. It is a mere Irish 
bull to suppose that the Church, prior to the incarna- 
tion, was confined to Jews. Of course it was ; how 
could it be otherwise ? When outsiders went in they 
were now Jews, and their posterity after them, if 
they stayed in. It was always just as it is now, relig- 
ion is confined to religious people — to the Church. 

397. Dr. John Dick (^Theology, p. 19) says, " The 
ceremonial law was connected with the ministry of 
Aaron and his sons, and prescribed the mode in which 
they were to conduct the services of the sanctuary ; 
but as soon as they were superseded by the new 
Priest it became obsolete, and circumstances de- 
manded, a different ritual." 

It has been already explained that there never was 



180 The City of aod. 

any special, legal ceremonial law in the sense here 
meant. There always were, and are now. Church 
rules about ceremonies, that is, external modes of 
worship. And also that before the incarnation, some 
of these ceremonies, pointing forward to the incarna- 
tion, must necessarily cease on the occurrence of that 
event. But how any one could suppose that the 
Aaronic priests were superseded by the new Priest 
is Strange indeed. Although Dr. Dick says so in 
this place, in so many words, and in many other 
places substantially, yet no Christian ever did or 
could believe it. No man would repudiate the idea 
more peremptorily or more scornfully then Dr. Dick 
himself. Everybody teaches everywhere, that rev- 
elation knows but one Priest. 

398. " Under this dispensation true religion con- 
sists in repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord 
Jesus Christ." (Fleetivood.) 

Under this dispensation ? And did true religion 
under any other dispensation ever consist in anything 
else ? May we not hope to see Christianity rescued 
from the entanglements of such teachings ? 

399. " Of what sect the Apostle Peter was, sacred 
history hath not informed us." (^Fleetwood's Life of 
Christ.') 

By sect is here meant the httle schools of Pharisees, 
Sadducees, and Essenes ; as if it were a matter of 
course that he belonged to either. Perhaps not one 
in five hundred of the Jews then had any connection 
with any of them. 

400. Fleetwood's Life of Christ is not the only 
book that teaches that the Sanhedrim, in sending 
Saul to Damascus, and other such like acts, did so in 
accordance with the religion of the Church. 



Errors of Authors. 181 

401. But the simple truth is, that in those things 
they acted in gross and ignorant violation of the 
Church. These acts were the unauthorized and mis- 
taken doings of fanatics and irreligious men, a major- 
ity of whom chanced to rule the great council at this 
time. But neither the Church nor its religion ought 
to be held responsible for these acts. Pope Leo X. 
sold indulgences ; but the Scriptures did not author- 
ize it. Moreover, at the time Saul was sent to 
Damascus on the occasion referred to, the Sanhedrim 
was not the ruling Church power, though it claimed 
to be. It was now the ruling power of the apostate 
Church, recently spHt off. The Church repudiated 
the Sanhedrim, and acted mdependently of it. 

402. Paley says : " St. Paul, before his conversion, 
had been a fierce persecutor of the new sect." 

This, if it be true, settles a very important question 
between Jews and Christians, which has been, to 
some extent, boldly contested for the last eighteen 
hundred years. The great question in the days of 
Paul, between the apostles and their opponents, the 
Jews who rejected our Saviour, was — which party 
was the new sect ? That is, which had departed 
from the revealed religion ? Whichever party this 
was, must necessarily have a new, human, and there- 
fore a false religion. Each charged this home upon 
the other. Each party claimed that it was adhering 
firmly to the divinely revealed religion, and that the 
other party was a mere new sect, with a new, and 
therefore a false rehgion. Then, if Paley be the 
admitted spokesman on the part of Christians, it is , 
acknowledged that the rejecting Jews were right, and 
that Christianity is a heresy. 

403. Dr. Schaff (^Hist. Apos. Ch,, p. 9) says that 



182 ^ The City of Qod, 

" Christ, as Redeemer, is to be found neither in 
Heathenism, nor Judaism, nor in Islamism." 

Very well. Then if Jesus Christ, as Redeemer, is 
not the Christ so frequently mentioned in the Old 
Testament, and so often specifically named as 
Redeemer in Job, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc., 
be it so ; and then we ought to hear no more about 
Christianity. But for my own part, I can but be- 
Heve that the apostles were right in claiming that 
Jesus Christ was and is the Redeemer; that the 
identical Jesus, and none other, was the Christ of the 
Jewish prophets. The question is between Schaff 
and Christianity. 

404. And again (page 18) : " For us, then. Church 
history embraces a period of eighteen centuries." 

I am unable to conceive of any principle of philos- 
ophy, religion, or ethics, upon which we have noth- 
ing to do with, or concern in, the history of the 
Church before that time. A very large portion of 
the sacred Scriptures is mere history of the Church 
prior to eighteen centuries ago. And the inspired 
Word tells us that it is all profitable to us for several 
valuable purposes. 

405. Again, he says : " The beginning of Church 
history is properly the incarnation of the Son of 
God." 

And then, what of the Church, about which we 
are told so much in Scripture, before the incarnation ? 
Had it no history ? 

406. On page 140, Dr. Schaff says that " Judaism, 
along with the pure development of divine revelation, 
embodied also more or less of human error and cor- 
ruption." 

I hardly know what to say of that remark. In 



Errors of Authors. 183 

my mind, it borders closely upon blasphemy, to say 
the least of it. It cannot, therefore, receive less than 
an unqualified denunciation.- There are some things 
about which we may not speak mildly. Human 
error and corruption, in any degree, must not be 
predicated of divine revelation. 

407. On page 143, we are told that " Judaism and 
heathenism, notwithstanding their essential differ- 
ence, have some common features and connecting 
links." 

As different systems of religion, the aspects in 
which they are understood by the author, they have 
and can have no common features nor connecting 
links, it seems plain to me. The one is revelation, 
pure, infinite wdsdom; and the other is a wholesale, 
unmitigated falsehood in its inception and through- 
out. I cannot conceive of two things in more univer- 
sal and deadly hostility to each other. In many 
places the author speaks of them as the great twin 
preparers for Christianity ! This must not be per- 
mitted. 

408. Conybeare and Howson (^St, Paul, vol. i. p. 
31) say that Christianity "- is the grain of which 
mere Judaism is now the worthless husk." 

I do not know what is intended to be meant by 
mere Judaism, unless the word is used in its proper 
signification, which is to mean pure, unmixed, entire, 
or absolute. And so mere Judaism is the written 
Old Testament. And then the question arises. Is 
the Old Testament a worthless husk ? I put the 
question directly, and have a right to suggest a cate- 
gorical answer. 

No ! It is the precious Word of God. It com- 
prises a large portion of the volume of the Chris- 



184 The City of God. 

tian Bible. Christianity requires that it be loved, 
adored, honored, cherished, read, and obeyed. In 
inseparable connection with the New, the Old Testa- 
ment is the man of our counsel, a light to our feet, 
and a lamp to our pathway. To repudiate either is 
to mar the blessed Scriptures, mutilate revelation, 
and dishonor God. 

409. Mr. Thos. Olivers, quoted by Dr. Clark, says, 
"The consequence of this opposition, both from 
within and without, was, that great numbers of the 
Hebrews apostatized from Christ and his gospel, and 
went back to the law of Moses." 

That is to say, they forsook the religion as taught 
by the apostles, and apostatized to that taught by the 
prophets. Mr. Olivers did not hear of the millions 
who' apostatized from all revelation, and set up a 
falsely called Jewish Church ; but he strangely hears 
of numbers who apostatized from the New Testament 
to the Old ! 

410. Again, Mr. Olivers says, " Here Christ is 
particularly compared with Moses, and shown to be 
superior to him in many respects." 

I do not think so. St. Paul never compared Christ 
to any human being. Such a comparison would be 
strange. I suppose Paul compared Jesus, the man, 
with Moses, showing his superiority, and thereby 
proving that He was Christ. 

411. Dr. Clarke says that Philip " preached the 
gospel to the Ethiopian eunuch." 

And I think so too. But then he only explained 
the 53d chapter of Isaiah in doing so. And then if 
the author is right here, as he most assuredly is, he 
is wrong in more than a hundred other places where 
he inculcates the belief that the gospel was first in- 
troduced and preached in the time of the apostles. 



Errors of Authors, 186 

412. I am surprised to see a remark of Bishop 
Watson's defense of the Bible against Thos. Paine, 
page 36 : " The doctrine and prophecy of Moses is 
true. The law that we haye was given by Moses. 
This is the faith of the Jews at present, .... and 
no period can be shown from the age of Moses to the 
present hour, in which it was not their faith." 

What ! Is the Pentateuch the faith of the present 
Jews ? Then what is the faith we call Christianity ? 
I can conceive of no statement that could be made 
that would more effectually sweep Christianity by the 
board. Either Christians or modern Jews, one or the 
other, have sadly departed from the Old Testament 
faith ; and if the present Jews have not done it, then 
the Christians certainly have, and Christianity is a 
heresy. The statement above is precisely what, and 
precisely all, that modern Jews claim. The Bishop 
says they have a true faith. Not so ; they have a 
false faith, false because they have departed from the 
doctrine and prophecy of Moses. The Pentateuch 
teaches not a Christ, some Christ, but Jesus Christ. 
If Jesus was not seen when Moses wrote. He has been 
seen since ; and it is now known that He existed then. 
The Christian faith is true because, and only because, 
it adheres to the doctrine and prophecy of Moses. 
Is Bishop Watson a Jew ? 

413. Again, on page 63, Bishop Watson says : 
" The books of the Old Testament were composed 
from records of the Jewish nation, and they have 
been received -as true by that nation from the time 
in which they were written to the present day." 

Now suppose Thomas Paine had rejoined on this 
wise : " You say the books of the Old Testament 
contain and teach a true revealed religious system of 



186 The City of God, 

faith. Secondl}^, you say, the Jews of the present 
day receive, hold and possess this true faith so re- 
vealed. Then, thirdly, vrhat.of this new Christianity 
of yours which you say is so opposite to the faith of 
these Jews ? If any body believes the Old Testa- 
ment, he beheves it as it is, and not as it is not. 
Modern Jews believe it as teaching a future Christ ; 
and you say, that is believing it. Then the Christian 
faith cannot be true, because that believes the Old 
Testament as holding Jesus to be its Christ. Two 
opposite and hostile things cannot both be true. 
Your faith holds Jesus to be the Christ of the Old 
Testament ; and the faith of the modern Jew holds 
some other and future coming person to be its Christ. 
And you say this latter faith is true. That is saying 
that Jesus is not Christ. And then you complain of 
me for saying the same thing. I am a bad man for 
saying it in terms, and you a good one for saying it 
by necessary implication ! " What would the Bishop 
reply to this ? 

414. " In the law of Moses retaliation for deliberate 
injury has been ordained." ( Wat%orCs Apology^ p. 
208.) 

It is painful to see one of the finest and best relig- 
ious tracts so terribly blotted and disfigured. Where 
m the Old Testament is such an ordinance to be 
found ? I need not inquire. A far greater than 
Bishop Watson has examined this specific matter, and 
we have his exposition. " Ye have heard that it has 
been said, by ignorant pretenders who understood it 
not, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, that 
private revenge and retaliation was the law ; but, un- 
derstanding and expounding the Scriptures rightly, 
I say unto you that ye resist not evil." That is the 



Errors of Authors. 187 

teaching. The Old Testament indeed enjoins a just 
return of equivalents, as does the New, and as the 
civil law does ; but where parties cannot agree pri- 
vately, this must be done by the civil magistrate, and 
not by private revenge and retaliation. See the 
chapter in Ecce Ecclesia on this subject. 

415. Bishop Burnet, quoted by R. Watson (^Inst., 
p. 699) says of the ancient Jews, " And when their 
sins had provoked God's wrath they were reconciled 
to Him by their sacrifices with which atonement was 
made, and so their sins were forgiven them." 

And so we are taught that that was the mode and 
manner of atonement for sin formerly ; and now, 
under a different system, we are reconciled by the 
atonement of Christ. And so, we are told, this latter 
is a better mode than the former. I doubt it. I am 
not able to see the improvement. I would greatly 
prefer the former mode. And if it were reinstated, I 
think I could make ten converts to Bishop Burnet's 
one. What miserable theology ! God reconciled by 
the blood of bulls and goats ! 

416. It is indeed Avohderful how far men of parts 
suffer themselves to be carried away by the notion 
of two religions and two churches. I have before me 
The Relation'hetween Judaism and Christianity^ hj 
the Rev. John G. Palfrey, D. D., LL. D., late Pro- 
fessor of Biblical Literature in the University at Cam- 
bridge, Mass., published in 1854, 8vo. 400 pages. It 
is really a somewhat scholarly production ; but pro- 
ceeds from the title-page throughout, as a matter 
never questioned, that the Old and New Testaments 
present respectively two entirely different rehgious 
systems. Moses is the founder of the one, and 
Christ of the other ; and they fraternize, and antago- 



188 The City of aod. 

nize here and there, so and so, in hundreds of points 
of relation, just as Christianity and Mohammedanism 
relate to each other. But that all the books of both 
the Old and New Testaments conjointly are a reve 
lation of one identical religious system, is a thing 
never hinted at by this University Professor of Bibli 
cal Literature. The two systems are fundamentally 
and constitutionally hostile to each other, and only 
agree in minor matters as Christianity and Buddhism 
might agree. This may seem strange, but there is 
the book. And the ten thousand times greater evil 
is, that such is the teaching of others too, that we are 
not at all shocked at such a book. 

417. On page 90, Dr. Palfrey says, " Judaism was 
to be superseded by Christianity, the religion of 
Moses for the religion of Jesus. The substitution of 
the gospel for the law was the establishment of the 
kingdom of heaven, the coming of the Son of man." 

The wonder is not so much that a professed theo- 
logian should write such absurdities and contradic- 
tions, but that they should be received and read, and 
be suffered to pass for half-way theology in a Chris- 
tian country for a single day. To believe it, you 
must first repudiate the entire drift of apostolic teach- 
ing and New Testament history. 

418. Bryant, on " The Truth of the Christian Re- 
ligion," quoted by Paley QEvid., p. 112) says, " The 
Jews still remain ; but how seldom is it that we can 
make a single proselyte ! There is reason to think 
that there were more converted by the apostle in 
one day than have since been won over in the last 
thousand years." 

If that statement were true it would be strange. 
But so far from being true, it first, falsifies all his- 



Errors of Authors. 189* 

tory, and secondly, overturns the Christian system 
completely. The Jews still remain ; that is, in the 
religious faith and status of the prophets ; and re- 
quire to be won over to a different rehgion. Then 
the Old Testament is just as far from Christianity as 
the modem Jews are. They remain together and 
equally oppose true religion. Any person believing 
the Old Testament must be won over from it. 
And then on attempting to believe the New Testa- 
ment, he finds, as imquestioned matter of fact, the 
very same system of truths he has just repudiated ; 
and worse still, if possible, the new system every- 
where openly professes to draw every doctrine it has 
directly from the Old Testament ! 

The fallacy of supposing the three thousand alluded 
to on the day of Pentecost, and others in that period 
who never opposed Christ or the apostles, being won 
over, is abundantly exposed and refuted elsewhere 
herein. Those who oppose Christ, either in the per- 
son of Jesus or otherwise, and they only, require to 
be won over. 

419. Dr. Stier (^Words of the Lord Jesus, on 
Matt. V. 17) speaks of " the Church or congregation 
hereafter to be built." 

Yes, certainly, hereafter to be built. That is pre- 
cisely right if you properly understand the word 
built. Hereafter to be edified, to be strengthened, 
to be more and more cemented together, enlarged 
and blessed. So all Christians are building the 
Church now. See the Essay on Matt. xvi. 18. 

420. Brown's Epistle of Peter, p. 73, says ; 
" Final salvation was the subject of Old Testa- 
ment prophecy." And again, " Final salvation is the 
subject of Old Testament prediction." 



190 The City of God. 

I do not see how the Old Testament, more than 
the New, can be spoken of as a prophecy or predic- 
tion. There are in both many things in the nature 
of prediction of future events. But that the Old 
Testament is a prophecy, fulfilled in the New, is a 
strange fancy. The Old Testament is teaching, 
didactic teaching. *' Thou shalt haye no other gods 
before me." Is that prophecy ? " Ho, every one 
that thirsteth, come ye to the waters ! " Is that a 
prediction of some future Christianity ? 

421. Ecce Homo is a recent publication that has 
attracted some attention in some places. Its rhetoric 
and classical style are elegant. Its matter is semi- 
infidel ; its historic basis is utterly and notoriously 
fabulous. It undertakes to deprive the Christship of 
Jesus of all and every divine attribute, by showing 
up our Saviour as a great man. This the Scripture 
never does. Greatness in Jesus is never predicated 
of his manhood, but always of his divinity. Jesus 
Christ was not a man rendered wise and good and 
great by divine afflatus or extraordinary inspiration. 
How, as man, He would measure with other men, we 
have no knowledge. Here Scripture is totally silent. 
And when we know nothing, we had better say 
nothing. 

Ecce Homo is an elegant romance. The name of 
its hero is Jesus Christ. He is a new character, now 
for the first time known to literature. The scene of 
the romance is the New Testament history, and the 
plan is to put this wonderful and mysterious man 
Jesus into the shoes of the true Jesus, and then 
make him perform wonders which, while in external 
form they somewhat resemble many things acted by 
our Saviour, are really things which neither He nor 
the men of his time and faith ever heard of. 



Errors of Authors. * 191 

On page 49, we are told as follows : "To deny- 
that Christ did undertake to found and to legislate 
for a new theocratic society, and that He did claim 
the office of Judge of mankind, is indeed possible, 
but only to those who altogether deny the credibility 
of the extant biographies of Christ." On page 59, 
we read that " Christ announced HimseK as the 
founder and legislator of a new society." On page 
61, the author begins to " deal with the actual estab- 
Hshment of the new Theocracy." 

I suppose it is of no use to attempt to meet ro- 
mance with either truth or argument. No man can 
read the sacred biogi'aphies of our Saviour, with an 
eye du-ected to the point, and not be compelled to 
know that there is neither semblance, nor pretense to 
historic truth in any of these statements. 

The book is a novel, founded on fact, as they say. 
The name of the hero, the chronological period, the 
geographical location. New Testament names and 
circumstances, are mostly familiar, and will be read- 
ily recognized as belonging to apostohc history. 

Christ was a most remarkable man ; in many re- 
spects one of the most remarkable, and in some the 
most remarkable, known to human history. Traits of 
greatness began to sparkle in his boyhood. Spring- 
ing from the lower walks of hfe, and unendowed 
with either literature or philosophy. He was slow in 
recognizing his own powers. As manhood began to 
dawn he felt the slumbering powers of popular con- 
trol coursing within Him. He had quick and keen 
perception of men and character. The spirit of the 
times was propitious. The Mosaic government was 
feeble with age, and slowness to keep pace with ex- 
pansion and progress did not escape his keen pene- 



192 - The City of God. 

tration. Christ saw the opportunity for revolution, 
and grasped it. .Keeping his own counsels, as the 
horizon of thought enlarged, He planned the total 
destruction of Judaism, its religion and its civil pol- 
ity ! He began on a small scale the nucleus of an 
opposing republic. He gathered around Him the 
right sort of men. He outgeneraled the greatest 
captains, outplanned the best statesmen, outpeered 
the wisest philosophers, and in controlling popular 
sentiment and feeling He outwitted the shrewdest 
men, and overturned the solidest combinations of his 
country and times. So Christ demolished and utterly 
destroyed the Jewish - religion and Jewish state, 
erecting on the ruins thereof a totally new and much 
purer system of morals, into the belief and practice 
of which He has drawn some milhons of followers. 
Like other conquerors He lost his life in the struggle, 
and died in the arms of victory. Such is one of the 
latest, and, bating its bald Unitarianism and semi- 
blasphemy, perhaps one of the best late novels. 

422. Fleetwood QLife of Christy p. 486) says of 
Paul : " Having refreshed himseK after his voyage, 
the Apostle sent for the heads of the Jewish consistory 
at Rome, and related to them the cause of his coming 
in the following manner : ' Though I have been 
guilty of no violence of the laws of our religion, yet 
I was delivered by the Jews at Jerusalem to the 
Roman governors, who, more than once, would have 
acquitted me as innocent of any capital offense,' " etc. 

We have a most instructing lesson in ihe last 
chapter of Acts, from the 17th verse- onward. We 
learn here a very important lesson about Paul's min- 
istry. He called together the chief Church officers of 
the Jews, the rejecting Jews, and held a conference 



Errors of Authors, 193 

with them, of which we have a very brief notice. 
He calls them brethren, and explains that in advo- 
cating the Christship of Jesus, he did " nothing 
against the people or customs of our fathers." He 
had preached no new religion, changed no customs, 
either of the Church or of society. He had kept 
straight forward in the track of his fathers. 
They then asked him to preach to the people about 
Jesus ; and they appointed a day for this purpose ; 
and he " persuaded them concerning Jesus, both out 
of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from 
morning till evening ; " how many days we are not 
informed. Some believed, and some did not. As 
they had " great reasoning " about the matter, Paul 
must have explained that the Lord's Supper and 
Baptism were changes of mere form, and not of 
substance, and that this was from absolute necessity. 
He declares he had done nothing but hold firmly to 
Moses and the prophets. 

Now the remarkable pomt here with Bishop Fleet- 
wood is, that after calling particular attention to 
Paul's declarations on this occasion, he still speaks, 
and on the same page, of Paul as having forsaken 
Moses and the prophets, and entered a new Church, 
and preached a new religion. The contradiction is 
so glaring, that it is remarkable. 

423. Fairbairn accounts for the mistakes of other 
writers on typology, by saying that " The gospel is 
read not only through a Jewish medium, but also in 
a Jewish sense." 

I cannot tell what he means by Jewish sense. 
The Jewish mind, drift of thinking, rehgious impres- 
sion, belief and sentiment before the incarnation, and 
the same thing called Jewish since, are as opposite 

13 



194 The City of God, 

and antagonistic as any two things can be, and in. 
every respect, too ; to which of these does the author 
refer ? He does not seem to discriminate. 

424. MacEwen on the Types, quoted in the Re- 
ligious Encyclopcedia^ says of the types of Scripture : 
" Some of them afford intrinsic evidence that the 
Scriptures which record them are given by inspira- 
tion of God ; the others can be proved to exist only 
by assuming the fact. But all of them, when once 
established, display the astonishing power and vris- 
dom of God ; and the importance of that scheme of 
redemption which was ushered into the world with 
such magnificent preparations." 

Revelation was not all made at once, but at many 
times through a period of two thousand years and 
more. Neither was it all verbal, though we have it 
in a verbal and historic form. Very much of revela- 
tion, when first seen, consisted in actions, such as the 
p contest between Moses and the Egyptian magicians, 
the passing of the Red Sea, the performances of 
priestly actions, the protection of Daniel from the 
lions, the death and resurrection of Jesus, and many 
others. Now, that all this revelation had a historic 
connection, so as to form one solid whole, is very cer- 
tain ; and hence previous ones may be said to be 
types, or pre-intimations, or pre-representations, or 
as they often were, fore-symboHzings of later ones. 
Indeed, they were all, not only historically related, 
but historically connected. 

But it is not true, as Dr. MacEwen supposes, that 
the revelations prior to the incarnation formed a com- 
plete integral whole, and those afterwards a complete 
whc<le, and that the former were merely preparations 
for the latter. This idea grows out of the popular 



Errors of Authors. 195 

blunder of two different dispensations of different 
laws and principles of atonement. 

The doctrine of a dualistic revelation is not true. 
And so when he writes about that scheme of re- 
demption which was ushered into the world at the 
time of Jesus, and that all before was mere magnifi- 
cent preparations, he writes what I am unable to re- 
ceive. 

This idea of a specific dualistic revelation has 
given rise to systems of typology, which have been 
carried to very fanciful and unwarrantable lengths. 
Everything in tlie Old Testament, they would teach 
us, was a mere type or prefigurement of some real 
principle or doctrine of the real and proper revela- 
tion of the New Testament, when Christianity was 
ushered into the world. There is no such relation 
between the different parts of revelation. The whole 
form one complete Christian Bible. 

425. Coleridge (^Aids to Reflection^ vol. i. p. 296) 
says, " Circumcision was no sacrament at all, but the 
means and mark of national distinction." 

That depends upon what he means by sacrament. 
Circumcision itself is not a sacrament, in the same 
sense as the same thing might be said of baptism. 
Both the circumcision and the baptism are modes of 
administering the obligation to serve God in the 
Church-state of religion. Circumcision undoubtedly 
was used as a religious rite. This is elsewhere fully 
explained. There is scarcely room for difference of 
opinion. 

426. Dr. Barth's History of the Church upon 
Scripture Principles is a brief synopsis of religious 
history ; in many respects an excellent manual of 
reference for juvenile instruction. It is a German 



196 The City of God, 

work, republished in this country by the New York 
Methodist Book Concern, in 1847, "for the Sunday- 
school Union of the Methodist Episcopal Church." 

He entirely fails to notice the two greatest of al- 
most all the religious facts known to history, namely, 
the uninterrupted passing of the Church through the 
scenes and period of the Incarnation of Christ, and 
the defection and apostacy at that time of the reject- 
ing or repudiating Jews, amounting to probably one 
half of the Church. 

427. Bridges' Christian Ministry^ first published 
in England in 1829, and afterwards in this country, 
is a respectable octavo volume, and treats the subject 
with fair appearances of learning and piety. But in the 
first chapter we read, " A separate order of men were 
consecrated to the great work of laying the founda- 
tion and raising the superstructure of his Church. 
Twelve only were included in the original institution, 
with a commission, bounded at first within the scanty 
extent of ' Immanuel's land,' but afterwards enlarged 
with a tender of the promised blessing to ' every 
creature.' " 

Now I think it is unquestionable, that every min- 
ister in the land, as readily including Mr. Bridges 
himself, as any one else, on a moment's reflection, 
will say that every part of the above statement is 
untrue. Everybody knows that his Church, the 
Church of God, call it by what name you will, was 
then already in existence, and had been for many 
hundred years, as Mr. R. Watson and many others 
say, '' the very same Church." Secondly, the 
twelve only had no directions about any original 
institution, but were commissioned to tell the Church 
and the world, that the ancient and then existing 



Errors of Authors, 197 

Christ had appeared in the person of Jesus. Thirdly, 
if by Immanuers land the authoi means the land of 
Palestine, he is mistaken in supposing their commis- 
sion was so narrowly bounded. If he means the 
Church, as it was then spread over the known world 
almost, he is correct. They were first to inform 
the Church, and the world through the Church. 
Fourthly, these promised blessings were certainly 
no new thing in the world. Thousands and millions 
of Old Testament saints could testify to the same 
blessings through the same faith. 

428. Dr. N. L. Rice, in his Romanism not Chris- 
tianity^ at page 17, says : " My first argument against 
the infallibility of the Church of Rome is, that there 
is no evidence hy which it cayi he proved^ 

Waiving the logical point whether that is an argu- 
ment, it concedes the important point that it might 
be proved ; that is, that it is a thing naturally capa- 
ble of being proved. Whereas, if the Church did 
not begin to exist in the way claimed by Romanists 
at all, namely, by being originally formed by Jesus 
Christ, then the thing denied by the Doctor is not a 
subject of proof at all — there could be no such 
question — there is nothing to prove. Pity the Doc- 
tor did not see this point. 

429. Again, page 297, he says, " Let us first in- 
quire into the organization of the Church of Christ." 

He now proceeds to inquire how, under what con- 
stitutional laws, the Saviour organized the supposed 
new Church ; to see whether these laws of organiza- 
tion did or did not establish the infallibility in ques- 
tion. But how much easier it would be to say, He 
did not establish a new Church at all, with or with- 
out infallibility. Then where is the question of 



198 • The City of God. 

infallibility ? Thus it is seen the Doctor puts into the 
hands of his opponents a weapon that historic truth 
does by no means furnish them, and with which they 
at least keep him in an interminable and imcomfo;*t- 
able warfare. Why give them the 'advantage of 
such a question at all ? Truth forbids it, and policy 
revolts at it. 

430. The Rev. John S. Stone, D. D., Dean of the 
Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, publishes 
the Mysteries Opened^ 1844, a work generally well 
written, in refutation of the High Church doctrines ; 
but the author greatly hampers himself by essaying 
to prove that the Low Church doctrine is most con- 
sonant with the original Church, as it was said to be 
first set up by Jesus Christ. Thus he makes the fatal 
acknowledgment that the present Church originated 
in that way. That is the very thing, and the impossi- 
ble thing, he ought to require his opponents to prove. 

431. Page 235, we read, " Christ did not cut off 
the Jews from the hope of salvation, but only from 
exclusive possession and enjoyment of the means of 
that salvation." 

That is much nearer the truth than many write 
on that point. If the remark had been predicated 
of some mistaken Jews who greatly misunderstood 
their own religion, instead of the Jews, it would do 
much better. The Saviour did not cut off anybody 
from such exclusive possession, because nobody pos- 
sessed any such franchise. But He taught such as 
needed the teaching, then or now, that religion was 
not exclusive. It taught the good old doctrine of 
the prophets — whosoever will, let him take the water 
of life freely. He taught then what He had always 
taught through the prophets. 



Errors of Authors. 199 

432. Dr. CoUyer's Lectures on Scripture Facts 
is an English book of respectable appearance. At 
page 272, we read about the reasons why we should 
regard Josephus' testimony about Jesus Christ as 
genuine. One was, " A new sect having sprung up, 
from this very event attracted the notice of both 
Jews and Gentiles, and boldly, perseveringly and 
successfully disseminating their tenets," which would 
be likely to call forth such notice. 

Here we are told that the apostles and their fol- 
lowers — half the whole Church — were a new sect 
that had sprung up, who very zealously disseminated 
their doctrines. Is this so? Can any man name 
one new doctrine that they taught ? Will Dr. CoU- 
yer, or anybody for him, attempt to name one? 
Surely we might suppose that among their doc- 
trines, the doctrines of a whole new sect, one or two 
could be named. And if not, then is it not a shame 
to Christendom that our pulpits, our families, and 
our little ones, are thus constantly cursed, wronged, 
and misled by such grave and mischievous fables ! 
Now a moment's reflection will convince any one 
that this question of a new sect was the only dispute 
of those times. The only thing charged against the 
apostles and those siding with them was, that they 
were a new sect, perseveringly disseminating their 
doctrines. Dr. CoUyer can take which side he 
chooses, but it can but be seen that the affirmative 
necessarily places a man with the repudiating Jews. 

433. In his chapter on " The Prophecies of Moses, 
respecting the Former and Present State of the 
Jews," Dr. CoUyer copies from former writers, as 
innocently as hundreds of later writers copy from 
him, the doctrine of the genealogical oneness of the 



200 The City of Qod. 

Jews of the present day, with the Jews of the time 
of Moses and the prophets. 

It is quite certain that either the Christians or 
Jews of the present day are in ecclesiastical and re- 
ligious oneness, by descent from the people known 
as Jews, at and before the birth of Jesus. And the 
only possible way to determine that question is to 
ascertain whether Jesus is or is not the Christ of 
the ancient Jews. That will determine it infalhbly. 
If Dr. Collyer's reasoning is good, then the modern 
Jews are the true followers of Moses and the proph- 
ets, and Christians are apostates from revealed re- 
ligion. 

434. Leland's View of Deistical Writers was pub- 
lished in England a little over a hundred years ago, 
and is considered a good exposition of the subject. 
But he certainly labors under iiie inconvenience of 
holding that Christianity is, and is not, a new and 
different religious system from that of the Old Tes- 
tament. On page 374, he says the miracles of the 
Saviour *' brought over vast numbers of both Jews 
and Gentiles, in the very age in which the facts were 
done, and when they had the best opportunity of 
knowing the truth of these facts, to receive a cruci- 
fied Jesus as their Saviour and their Lord." 

That remark has very good apphcation to Gen- 
tiles, those out of the Church ; but what were 
those already in the Church brought over to ? The 
Christ they believed in and worshipped was previ- 
ously invisible to sense ; and now for the first time 
He appears incarnate, and on the first good evidence 
of the fact, they accept Jesus as their Christ. That 
bringing over ! It is remaining intact. 

435. On page 16'3, Dr. Leland says, " One reason 



Errors of Authors. 201 

of the extreme virulence with which he (Lord Bol- 
ingbroke) hath attacked the law of Moses and the 
Scriptures of the Old Testament seems to be the 
near connection there is between this and the relig- 
ion of Jesus, which he represents to have been origi- 
nally intended by our Saviour as a system of Juda- 
ism." 

Well, that is better than the teachings of Paley, 
Barnes, Jenyns, Dr. Stuart of Andover, and many 
others, who declare that there is absolutely nothing 
common to both. Leland admits a near connection. 
I do not see that his infidel lordship was at fault in 
insisting that objections would lie with equal force 
against the Old and the New Testament. Dr. Le- 
land undertook the imequal warfare, with the great 
and shrewd infidel, of defending Christianity as a 
system of religion new and different from that of the 
Old Testament. This wrongfully admitted difference 
and even antagonism, as it is often said, is the great 
support of infidelity. 

436. Not a little discussion has been had about the 
origin of priesthood. Fairbairn (^Typology ^ vol. ii. 
p. 220) opens his discussion of the subject, which is 
both long and learned, on this wise ; " It is some- 
what singular that the earliest notices we have of a 
priesthood in Scripture refer to other branches of the 
human family than that of Abraham." He then no- 
tices that the first mention of priest is of Melchize- 
dek ; then Potipherah. "Not till the children of 
Israel left the land of Egypt, were they placed under 
that particular polity." Then comes the question, 
" How and when did it originate ? " and, " How did 
they make their approach to God, and present their 
oblations ? Did each worshipper transact for himself 



202 The City of Gtod, 

with God, or did the father of a family act as priest 
for the members of his household ? Or was the 
priestly function among the privileges of the first- 
born ? This last position has been maintained by 
many of the Jewish authorities, and also by some 
men of great learning in Christian times." 

I understand the subject differently. First, there 
never was any priest, any atoning or real priest, me- 
diating between God and man in reference to sin and 
salvation, but Christ. You could not speak of Jesus 
before He lived. The atonement of Christ has no 
special reference to times, peoples, circumstances, or 
chronological periods, but is unhmitedly comprehen- 
sive and plenary, relating to mankind. How much 
of divine, priestly atonement is comprehended in vis- 
ible acts, cognizable to our senses, we do not know. 
But we do know that those acts which date eighteen 
hundred years ago, had, before that time, a prospec- 
tive reference, as they since refer retrospectively. 
How well this or that person understood this theolog- 
ical subject, in the period before the incarnation, is 
the same kind of a question as might be asked of per- 
sons since. What the divine plan of atonement was, 
and is, is one thing. How well somebody understands 
it is another and different thing. The general rule 
is, the more light the more vision. A child three 
years old is taught to pray and worship, and yet he 
knows very little of the theology of salvation. 

It follows, therefore, that those who look for the 
priestly function, or privilege, or franchise of atone- 
ment, or the origin of priesthood, among such men 
as Melchizedek, Potipherah, Aaron, etc., whether they 
be Jewish authorities or men of great learning in 
Christian times, are searching for that which does 



Errors of Authors, 203 

not and never did exist. There never was, nor could 
there ever be any such origin, privilege, or franchise, 
so long as it remains written that there is "no other 
name given under heaven " for priesthood and atone- 
ment but the one name. Then let these speculations 
about priestly functions cease. 

Then, what was the function, calling, or office of 
those men called priests in the ancient Church ? If 
they were not real priests, what were they ? They 
were teachers, teachers of the doctrine of priestly 
atonement. Their peculiar business was to inculcate 
the principle and truth of priestly forgiveness. How 
did they perform these teachings ? By actions ad- 
dressed to the eye. Why not do as teachers of this 
same doctrine do now, teach with words addressed to 
the ear? For the reason that before such atoning 
acts as were intended for the cognizance of our senses 
became visible and historic, that was impossible. In 
the nature of things such teaching can be performed 
in no other way than by adumbrant pre-representa- 
tion. 

Before the events of Calvary, it was impossible to 
teach the doctrine of atonement in any other way. 
Our instruments of teaching are historic and sensi- 
ble ; theirs were prospective and theoretical. They 
taught a truth ; we teach a fact. The men are called 
priests, metonymically, as we frequently call a book 
by the name of the man who wrote it. They are 
called priests not because they possessed any atoning 
franchise, not because they stood any nearer to God 
than other men, not because they possessed any aton- 
ing ability, not because the blood they offered, the 
blood of bulls and goats, had any atoning efficacy, 
but because they acted the forms of atonement visibly, 



204 The City of God. 

as mere instruments of instruction. They did, in the 
only possible way then, what historic lessons now do 
by didactic means. 

Let a man try to describe something he has never 
heard, nor seen, nor felt, nor smelled, nor tasted, and 
he may have some faint appreciation of the reasons 
why the people of those times did not teach the doc- 
trine of priestly sacrifice as we do now. They were 
shut up to the necessity of teaching in the manner 
they did. 

437. " The Church of Rome, however, erroneously 
believe their priests to be empowered to offer up 
to the Divine Majesty real, proper sacrifice, as were 
the priests under the Old Testament." (^Buck's Dic- 
tionary.') 

And why not ? I know of no reason why the one 
may not be as readily believed as the other. The 
mistake here is, first, in supposing that the priests 
under the Old Testament were empowered to offer 
up to the Divine Majesty, real, proper sacrifice. 
There is no sacrificial virtue whatever in the blood 
of bulls and 'goats. The next error is in not distin- 
guishing between Christ and Jesus. Jesus was only 
the human manifestation of Christ. Jesus had his 
origin and life like other men at his chronological 
period. He lived and died. Christ is immutable. 
Or, without raising any question as to the eternity of 
the Sonship, He was at least here, in the full exercise 
of all the functions of Saviourship, in the time of 
Adam and his sons. And this leads to the third 
error of supposing that Christ became a sacrifice for 
the sin of the world, only at the period of Jesus' life. 
And hence the misinterpretation of Paul, in suppos- 
ing him to speak of a new principle, or law of sacri- 



Errors of Authors. 205 

fice, whereas he means only new and better facili- 
ties for teaching and understanding it. 

438. " With the beginning of Messiah's reign on 
Pentecost, the law of Moses was aboHshed, and the 
gospel in its elements, and with its conditions of sal- 
vation, first proclaimed." 

In one of the recent pubhc debates in Kentucky, 
on ecclesiastical science, of which there have been 
quite a number, the above is the carefully prepared 
proposition of Mr. Brooks of the Christian Church, 
so called, one of the debaters. The law of Moses is 
here explained to include, in the largest sense, all 
that is preceptive or obligatory in the Old Testament. 
It has no more to do with true religion, with salva- 
tion, or the conditions of salvation, than the Koran 
or the books of Confucius. And as God is unchange- 
able, it never had ! 

439. I regret to see that Dr. Lange's Commentary, 
recently pubhshed, fails to notice the uninterrupted 
continuance of the Church through the period of the 
New Testament history ; and so, on page 4 of his 
Introduction, he says, " The history of revelation 
may be divided into the pre-Christian, and the Chris- 
tian (not post- Christian) ei*a." And elsewhere he 
speaks more elaborately of the " pre-Christian era," 
etc. 

These expressions are certainly understood to mean 
what the scholarly author could not have intended. 
Pre-Christian may be proper enough if it have refer- 
ence to the mere name of the Church, but to have 
application either to its religious faith, or the outward 
organization of its fellowship, is out of the question. 

440. Dr. Lange says of Matthew : " Before his 
conversion, he was employed in collecting toll and 
custom by the Lake of Gennesareth." 



206 The City of God. 

This is entirely unknown. There is not a word in 
Scripture as to Matthew's early religious history, 
when or where he was converted. The history of his 
early acquaintance with the Saviour is exceeding 
brief. It merely says that he was a collector of 
custom ; that Jesus, after more or less acquaintance 
with him — we are not informed — proposed to him 
the mission and calling of his after Hf e ; that he com- 
plied promptly, entering upon those duties after 
reasonable time to disengage himself from his former 
pursuits. But to assume that he was then converted 
is entirely gratuitous. There is not the remotest 
intimation, even inferential, of such a thing. We 
know he was a member of the Church, and that his 
written creed, or faith, was that of the Church now. 
It certainly might be that, like Saul of Tarsus, his 
faith was only nominal, and he then unconverted. 
But there is not the least intimation that it was so. 
It would be clumsy and absurd enough to suppose a 
man was unconverted, because he held the faith of the 
prophets and believed the Old Testament. AU the 
presumptions are in favor of early piety in the 
apostle. He accepted the Christship of Jesus at 
least as early as Dr. Lange did, that is, so soon as he 
was informed of it. 

441. It is certainly a great blunder of Dr. Lange, 
to speak, as he does in several places, of " the esoteric 
religion of the Jews." The meaning is, that all true 
religion prior to the incarnation was esoteric. Used 
as that word is here, it means private, private teach- 
ing, or private religious faith. It is used in contra- 
distinction to exoteric, which means outward, public, 
or riot restricted. 

Before that period was there no religion for man- 



Errors of Authors. 207 

kind ? Let a man reflect a moment on the idea of a 
mere private offer of salvation. Many Christians 
object to ordinary Calvinism ; but this is tenfold 
more objectionable. Are " Whosoever will, let him 
come," and more than a thousand other expressions 
of the same general import, esoteric lessons ? Are 
the Ten Commandments esoteric ? "We have no eso- 
teric Scriptures. If the Old Testament was formerly 
esoteric, how and by what authority did it become 
exoteric? We are told the Old Testament was 
abolished by Jesus Christ. Did that abolition give 
it exoteric authority? It has been heretofore ex- 
plained that as true religion, from the early occupa- 
tion of Palestine by the Hebrews to the incarnation, 
was called Jew, or Jewish, it was a simple truism 
that religion was confined to Jews ; that is, religion is 
confined to religious people. . 



208 The City of Qod, 



II. 

THE APOSTOLATE. 

What office did the twelve apostles hold in the 
Church ? What power, duty, franchise, or function 
was peculiar to them, or, including Paul as the thir- 
teenth, what pertained to them especially, as apos- 
tles ? 

First. It was not to introduce or teach any new 
religion, or new doctrines, tenets, or principles of 
religion, or any new 'rules of morals not already 
known to the Scriptures, and more or less taught by 
ministers everywhere. This they certainly did not 
do. They were not, as we are told in Smith's Bible 
Dictionary^ " sent forth first to preach the gospel," 
if by gospel you mean the universal offer of salvation 
to all men through Christ. This had been done for 
hundreds and thousands of years, by thousands of 
other ministers, and was then being done every Sab- 
bath day by other thousands. 

Second. It was not a peculiar function of the apos- 
tolate to " found churches," as we are told by the 
same authority. This they undoubtedly did, but 
only in common with other ministers. Thousands 
did the same thing at the same time, as well as before 
and since. Thousands of churches then existed, not 
only throughout the little province of Palestine, but 
over the entire known world almost. The general 



The Apostolate. 209 

rule then was, and had been for hundreds of years, 
to extend and establish churches wherever there 
were ten persons of leisure. So this extending of 
churches, however much or little of it was done, was 
neither new nor peculiar. It was always so. 

Third. Neither was it the apostles' business to set 
up, or assist in setting up a new general Church, as 
Romanists suppose. This, we may conclude has 
been pretty Avell proven, was not done at all by any- 
body. This, then, was liot their ofl&ce. There was 
no kingdom of heaven, to introduce and set up anew 
in the world, either in the form of doctrines or princi- 
ples of salvation, or of social Christianity manifested 
in outward rehgious communion. 

Fourth. Neither was it an apostoHc function- to 
govern the Church, to administer its laws, ordain its 
ministers, or supervise its affairs. This was at least 
physically impossible. Look at the facts, and it is 
utterly out of the question. It is the notion of many, 
but will not bear the least touch of sober inquiry. 
In that age of the world, the Church never numbered 
less than several 'millions, spread over the known 
world. With their means of travel, it was physically 
impossible they could see it, even once in their lives, 
much less govern its affairs. The notion that these 
twelve men governed the whole Church for some 
years is inseparable from the Romish doctrine of a 
new Church being then formed in Jerusalem, begin- 
ning in the nature of a corporation, with twelve, 
twenty, or a hundred members. Such a Church, if 
there had been such a thing, might have been 
governed by twelve superintendents or bishops, for a 
time. But there was no such Church. The only 
Church known to Scripture, or to history, never, in 

14 



210 • The City of God. " 

those ages, numbered less than several millions, with 
probably ten thousand preachers at the very least, 
and spread over the known world. The travel was 
on foot. What practical government could they 
exercise ? 

Fifth. It is said the apostles were bishops. Per- 
haps they were, if there were any bishops in those 
times, i. e., what is now commonly called bishops. 
Of this, however, there is no mention in Scripture. 
If the Church then had what we now call an Episco- 
pal form of government, there must have been sev- 
eril hundred bishops. 

Sixth. Then if none of these things furnish us 
with the peculiar apostolic function, what was it ?, 
This must be an easy question to answer. Let us 
look slowly at the condition of things at that period. 
Christ, as the second person in the divine Trinity, 
had existed and been in the Church since the days of 
Adam, but was not to appear and be seen as a man 
until now. We see also the mode of this appear-, 
ance. And we see also, not an unlikely thing, that 
there were false pretensions to the Christship. 
Hence the necessity of some certain way of identify- 
ing the true Christ. Now how was this to be done ? 
His miracles would do something toward it, but we 
see that these alone were not sufficient. It required 
the best possible evidence, and of every possible kind. 
His death and resurrection was the best conceivable, 
but even that had to be verified. 

Let it be borne in mind that this simple question 
of fact, whether the man Jesus was or was not the 
Christ, was the only mooted question of any impor- 
tance in the Church in those times. There were no 
serious questions about doctrines, or Church govern- 



The Apostolate, 211 

ment, or an}i:liing of the sort. The Christship of 
Jesus was the only question. The resurrection was 
the highest proof, but to whom was this presented ? 
Necessarily to a very few. The great mass of the 
Church was at a distance, and could not possibly see 
or know these things. They could not even hear 
about them for months or years. At this time per- 
haps three fourths, or for aught that we know, nine 
tenths of the Church, had never heard of Jesus. 
But a small part of the Church lived in Palestine. 
And of these, but a few hundred, or at most a few 
thousand, had had opportunity to learn much, con- 
clusively, of these great matters, or had made the 
best use of the opportunities they had. The resur- 
rection was known to but a handful. 

Now the question arises. How is the Church, and 
through it the whole world, to be authoritatively in- 
formed of the human Christship, with such certitude 
that it may at once be accepted as a conclusive mat- 
ter of faith? This question must be settled wher- 
ever and whenever fairly presented. There must be 
no unreasonable delay. Jesus being the Christ, He 
must be accepted at once. And the question must 
be presented to the whole Church as soon as prac- 
ticable.. Those few just there, in and around Jeru- 
salem, who were in favorable circumstances, could 
know and decide. But beyond this handful, how 
are the millions to know ? 

Here we see the necessity for the apostles. This 
was their great office. They were witnesses. They 
were to testify to the Church and the world that 
Jesus was Christ. It was first necessary that they 
themselves be convinced by the highest possible 
sanctions. Now look at their training for several 



212 The City of God. 

years, fitting them for the office. At the time of the 
ascension they not only knew the fact themselves, 
but were impressed with the necessity of publishing 
it to the Church and the world, of course " begin- 
ning at Jerusalem." This was the natural place to 
begin ; and then in the synagogues, everywhere. 

Christ crucified could not be preached until He was 
crucified ; and not even then by those not well and 
authoritatively informed of the fact. None could 
know it at first but the apostles and a very few oth- 
ers. The world must be informed. The apostles 
were the special heralds of this great fact. But in 
this they certainly preached no new doctrines, they 
introduced no new religion, they set up no new 
kingdom. 

It was impossible that Jesus could be known as 
Christ, even after the resurrection, for months and 
years, by large portions of the Church. So they 
could not preach what they did not, and could not 
know. The high apostolic office was, to make this 
fact known.* They were the messengers specially 
appointed to carry the intelligence speedily to the 
churches. 

Imagine ourselves living a hundred, or a, thousand 
miles from Palestine. We are devout, pious people, 
trusting for salvation as the prophets trusted, to the 
merits of Christ. The Old Testament is our Bible, 
its God is our God, and its Christ is our Christ. We 
hear strange rumors from Palestine. We are bewil- 
dered with these statements. Some of them seem 
plausible, others almost or quite incredible. Enemies 
are Hkely to misrepresent ; while friends are not al- 
ways free from exaggeration. Our piety, if nothing 
else, forces upon us an intense anxiety to know the 



The Apostolate. 213 

truth. The Scriptures favor the general statements, 
but cannot be conckisive because we do not know 
whether the facts precisely fulfill the prophecies. 
Nothing could be more welcome to our pious ears 
than to hear, in solid, reUable certainty, that Jesus 
was and is the very Christ. Most of our information 
comes roundabout and through many hands. O, for 
something direct and certam ! But as we value truth, 
we must receive this information slowly and cau- 
tiously, hoping it may prove true, but fearing it may 
not. 

Now this was, it must have been, the case with 
hundreds of thousands of pious people then living. 
Jesus was unknown out of Palestine, nor are we 
warranted in believing that many in Palestine knew 
much about Him. 

Under these circumstances, O, how welcome a 
messenger was an apostle affirming, " We tell what 
we know, and testify what we have seen ! " They 
would tell the churches : " We know Him well ; we 
were with Him almost every day for several years ; 
we saw Him in his ministry, and in his death ; yea, 
we saw Him forty days after his death. We con- 
versed with Him repeatedly and freely after we saw 
Him die, and in his tomb." O, the thrilling scenes 
they would relate ! O, the responses they would 
receive ! 

And then they not only related what they had 
seen, but they were weU backed up with the Holy 
Ghost, by which they compelled belief in all who 
were willing to hear the truth. So, while the piously 
inclined multitudes heard the apostolic messages with 
delight, and by them were fiUed with the Holy Ghost, 
the proud scoffed, and' the worldly turned away. 



214 The City of God. 

How natural was all this ! How true both to reason 
and to Scripture ! 

Watson's Theological Dictionary, art. " Apostle,'* 
says it means, " One of the twelve disciples of Jesus 
Christ, commissioned by Him to preach his gospel, 
and propagate it to all parts of the earth." 

This, which is all he says about the peculiar apos- 
tolic function, is certainly no description at all of 
apostle. If he had said they were " men who hved 
in Palestine," the statement would be true, but would 
be no description of the twelve apostles, because it 
would apply just as well to thousands of others. So 
there were in that age, as well as in this, many other 
disciples of Jesus Christ, commissioned by Him to 
preach his gospel, and propagate it to all parts of the 
earth. The description describes nothing. 

Sometimes we are told they were messengers sent 
to proclaim the gospel. So were Abel, Noah, and 
every other preacher to this day. 

Their office was to proclaim and prove the great 
fact, and then to explain, where they could, the nec- 
essary discontinuance of those rehgious ceremonies 
that pointed forward to the visible work of Christ. 

Peter and the other apostles seem to have under- 
stood their office as here stated. " Beginning from 
the baptism of John unto that same day that He was 
taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a wit- 
ness with us of his resurrection." (Acts i. 22.) 
There is stated the true apostolic function : to be a 
witness with us of his resurrection. They were to 
witness his resurrection, and consequently, of course, 
his Christship, first to the Church and then to the 
world. Nothing is said specially about their govern- 
ing the Church, here or elsewhere. 



The Apostolate, 215 

What is meant, therefore, when we are told, 
" They were his messengers, sent forth to proclaim 
his kingdom ; and after his resurrection, they were 
specially selected to bear witness of that event?" 
(^Scott's Bible, Matt. x. 1.) 

What kingdom were they to proclaim ? Surely, 
nothing but what prophets and preachers had always 
proclaimed. And as to his resurrection, it looks like 
a very diluted expression to say, they were spe- 
cially selected to bear witness of that event. Not 
the mere event surely, but the great, vital truth 
which this event, taken in connection with other 
events, proves to be true, namely, the divine Christ- 
hood in the man Jesus. The Christhood was the 
question. 

" The apostles were unlearned men, brought up 
in obscurity, and not used to speak before public 
assemblies." Dr. Scott writes that just because 
other men do, and for no other reason. There is 
not a word of testimony to justify the statement. 
If I should write that they were mostly learned men, 
preachers of considerable standing, accustomed to 
pubUc speaking, the statement would look a little 
more reasonable, and would at least be difficult to 
disprove. 

" As regards the apostolic office, it seems to have 
been preeminently that of founding the churches, 
and upholding them by supernatural power, specially 
bestowed for that purpose." (^Smith's Diet., art. 
" Apostle.") 

Where there is difference of opinion about either 
the meaning of Bible language, facts, or doctrines, 
one <ian tolerate, and even have high respect for that 
which he does not believe. But that is not the case 



216 The City of God. 

here. Therfe is no rational difference of opinion here. 
Did- the apostles found churches ? Where is such a 
thing intimated in Scripture? Churches already- 
existed all over the land, the very identical churches, 
hundreds and thousands, no doubt, that merely con- 
tinued uninterruptedly. What churches vrere founded, 
beyond such ordinary extension of churches as has 
been always going on ? 

Mr. James Anthony Froude, in a recent address 
to the University of St. Andrews, says, page 31 : 
" I am not about to sketch the rise of Christianity. 
I mean only to point out the principles on which 
the small knot of men gathered themselves together, 
who were about to lay. the foundations of a vast rev- 
olution." 

Let the blunder here be pointed out, and neither 
the learned Professor, nor any one for him, would 
for one moment undertake to defend the language. 
Here the twelve apostles are represented as being 
about to lay the foundations of a vast revolution. I 
wdll not argue the question how irreligious the 
Church was, at the period in question ; but I must 
insist, that to sweep out a house is a different thing 
from removing it and building a new one. The 
former is reformation ; the latter is revolution. The 
religion of the Church of that day was not revolu- 
tionized, for it is our Bible, verbatim^ to-day. The 
apostles, and those acting with them, improved it as 
much as they improved it. If it had been told Isaiah, 
that the Christ he worshipped, and of whose appear- 
ance he prophesied, was going to overthrow his re- 
ligion, and raise up a new and different one, he would 
have taught his informer better. 

To say that the apostles set on foot a revolution 



The Apostolate. 217 

means that the religion of the Church, that is, the 
Old Testament, in its religious teachings was radi- 
cally and thoroughly erroneous, and so had to be de- 
stroyed, and replaced by new Scriptures. This is too 
wild and fabulous to think about. Everybody knows 
that, holding the Scriptures intact, the Saviour and 
apostles, and all those cooperating with them, labored 
to improve the piety of the Church, just as men do 
now. They did not change, nor seek to change one 
o^ its minutest doctrines or shades of doctrine. They 
introduced such new modes of teaching as the divine 
incarnation rendered necessary. 

As to the government of the Church, there seems 
to have been no trouble or material change on that 
score. It is scarcely alluded to in the New Testa- 
ment. It is nowhere the prominent subject of re- 
mark. The Sanhedrim seems to have discontinued, 
not however, because of anything wrong in its con- 
stitution, but because its members -mostly apostatized, 
and thus left the true Church ; and so this made it 
the governing body of another, a different, an apos- 
tate Church. The Sanhedrim, though never neces- 
sary just as it was formed, was,' no doubt, a very use- 
ful means of exercising the higher functions of gov- 
ernment. In its later history, it was much abused. 
Something much like it has nearlj^ always been in 
the Church. It is the mistake of many who suppose 
that this council, so frequently alluded to in the New 
Testament, pertained to the entire Church at that 
time. It had no recognized jurisdiction, beyond the 
Judean portion of it. The Hellenistic and Samaritan 
portions of the Church had, no doubt, their respec- 
tive legislative and judicial councils, more or less 
similar to, or differing from that at Jerusalem. 



218 The City of aod. 

The disruption of the Church and apostacy of a 
large portion of it about Jesus, with the tei-rible 
strifes and animosities that ensued, seem to have 
destroyed the sectarian jealousies between these three 
denominations. The great and vital question of the 
Christship overrode and absorbed everything. 

But these matters of Church government had no es- 
sential connection with the apostolate. That referred 
to the far higher, and infinitely more important mat- 
ter of ordaining forever, at the very first moment 
possible, the great and fundamental fact of the di- 
vine Christhood in humanity, the world-wide pedes- 
tal upon which all human salvation rests. 



Matthew XVI. 18. 219 



III. 
MATTHEW XVI. 18. 

The expression here cited, " On this rock I will 
build my Church," is relied upon primarily, or, with 
its supposed surrounding supports it might be said al- 
most wholly, to maintain the doctrine of a new and 
different Church for Christians from the then exist- 
ing Church. And it is at once obvious that this 
must be understood as a settled starting-point, before 
you can begin to consider either Romanism or any 
other branch of High Churchism. All forms of High 
Churchism claim only to have ascertained the man- 
ner in which this new Church was formed, and the 
legal principles which were interwoven in it. 

That such a construction has been given to this 
passage is indeed remarkable ; and that it has been 
generally conceded, without debate or question, may 
be regarded astounding. It is not less than wonder- 
ful, that the only important question here has gen- 
erally been passed over, and a mythical question 
about Peter substituted in its place. The question 
about Peter, so much debated between certain Ro- 
manists and Protestants, is called mythical, because 
it inquires only whether Peter, the apostle, acted this 
part or that, in the formation of the new Christian 
Church, when there was, in truth, no such formation 
of a new Church. It inquires how a thing was done, 



220 The City of Qod, 

without first stopping to see whether it was done at 
all, and when the thing never was done. 

" On this rock I will build my Church." It has 
been generally understood in the books, and until 
lately has not been seriously and widely questioned, 
that the words, " I will build my Church," were 
equivalent to his saying, " I am about to begin and 
set up a new Church, distinct and different from the 
one now existing." And then the questions have 
run as to the newly enacted laws of the new Church. 
No other Scripture except this has been cited, as direct 
proof of the new Church. 

Now, it must first be conceded that this passage does 
relate to a new Church formation, before any ques- 
tion can arise as to the agency of Peter, or any other 
agency in it. So a reply at all about Peter's pri- 
macy, headship, or 'office in this new Church, of 
course concedes that there was such a Church. 

This expression of Scripture, " I will build," etc., is 
made to mean the very reverse of what it does mean. 
Properly understood, it means that no new Church 
was to be made, but that the Church then existing 
was to be improved. Now this shall be made so 
plain, that there shall not be room for either doubt 
or objection. 

Jesus said that " on " something He would "build " 
his Church. Now what is huild? What is the 
meaning of huild f See Webster's Dictionary (ed. 
1857) : " In Scripture, to increase and strengthen ; 
to cement and knit together ; to settle or establish 
and preserve. Acts xx. 32 ; Eph. ii. 22 ; 1 Sam. ii. 
35." 

Now as there is no authority or pretense of au- 
thority differing from this definition, one would sup- 



Matthew XVL 18. 221 

pose it might be allowed to settle the question. 
When the Saviour said He would do to or for the 
Church what is here rendered build, He said He 
would increase and strengthen the Church, He would 
cement it together, He would settle, establish, and 
preserve it. These words in such a connection, all 
mean about the same thing. The definition is 
slightly different . in verbiage, in different editions 
of Webster, particularly those published since the 
death of the author, but there is no authority in the 
EngUsh language, differing materially from this. 
Edify, also, means the same thing. Milton, in 
" Paradise Lost," referring to the return of the 
Israelites from their captivity in Babylon, and their 
rebuilding the temple, says, — 

" The house of God 
They first reedify." 

A building is an edifice.- Though of late years cus- 
tom has mostly discontinued the use of the verb in 
this sense. 

Now, repeating that there is no English authority 
opposing these definitions, can anything be more cer- 
tainly understood ? What is the use of a spy-glass 
to see a thing. a yard from you, or an elaborate argu- 
ment where there is nothing to argue about ? 

This word build, with its derivatives, is used in 
the New Testament about seventy times. Some- 
times — according to the subject and sense — it is 
translated huild^ builder^ building^ etc., and some- 
times edify^ edification^ etc., as' sense, taste, and 
idiom may seem to require. But here is an im- 
portant fact necessary to be specially noted : when- 
ever the act is referred to the Almighty, as in this 
text before us, in all Scripture, it invariably apphes 



222 The City of aod. 

to some well known thing already existing, and never 
to a new thing brought, or to be brought into exist- 
ence. So when the Lord is said to build, the mean- 
ing is that He strengthens, enlarges, makes better, 
edifies. Any other meaning will make the Scrip- 
ture appear ridiculous. 

This text, therefore, clearly establishes the doctrine 
of a then existing Church, which -the Saviour said 
He would enlarge, support, build up, and edify. 
Surely He has done, and is still doing all this. 

And then the Saviour said He would do this build- 
ing, this enlarging, and edifying " on " something. 
Now what is the meaning of on ? Let us go again to 
the Dictionary. 

On means " in consequence of, or immediately fol- 
lowing ; " or in pursuance of ; as we would say, " on 
payment of the money, I will deliver the goods." 
Now, there is one vitally important thing we know 
with unmistakable certainty, about the Saviour's fu- 
ture intention to edify,- enlarge, or build the Church, 
whether He said so on that occasion or not. We 
know that whatej^er was done, or to be done there- 
after, in truth, to, for, or about the Church, was to 
be done on^ i. g., in consequence of, in pursuance of, 
or immediately following the fact just then stated by 
Peter, that Jesus was Christ. This was now the 
great and fundamental question of the Church. Sup- 
posing that Jesus was, and is Christ, it necessarily 
follows that everything done in, or for the Church, 
must be done hereafter, — but could never be done be- 
fore, — on, or in pursuance of that great fact. Now 
and thenceforward, everything in the Church rests 
on that rock, oq that fundamental fact, Jesus is 
Christ. 



Matthew XVL 18. . 223 

' The language of the text looks too simple for dif- 
ference of opinion. Then to what purpose are these 
lengthy discussions about Peter — what powers or 
prerogatives were or were not conferred upon him ? 
What is to be gained by the success of either party ? 
If the Church was then and there made a new re- 
ligious corporation or society, to have perpetual suc- 
cession from that time, and work under its then pre- 
scribed charter, who cares whether the first president's 
name was Peter or something else ? If Peter was not 
the first president, or bishop, then somebody else y^as, 
and who cares ? The supposition that the conferring 
of some powers of government upon one or more lead- 
ing Church officers then, fixes official or legal rules 
for Church government now, rests upon the supposi- 
tion precedent that Jesus Christ then made anew this 
Christian Church. And this seen to be a palpable 
figment, the whole argument, both sides alike, is a 
palpable figment. The argument is about nothing. 

Those who have no better use for ink and paper, 
may debate whether " Peter was thus honored to lay 
the first foundation of the Christian Church," or 
" be the foundation thereof ; " and who cares which 
may be judged the winning side ? The question 
itself being fictitious, how can the answer be any- 
thing more ? 

If the Church is not a corporation formed in such 
way at all, as we have perhaps abundantly shown, 
then let that truth answer every conceivable question 
about High Church doctrines. Popish, Episcopal, or 
what not. The entire range of ecclesiastical science 
is thus reduced to a unit, and the Church Hterature 
is reheved of vast burdens of polemical rubbish. 



224 The City of aod. 



IV. 

THE ANCIENT PROMISE OF A SAVIOUR. 

Closely connected with, and growing very natu- 
rally put of the great blunder of an entirely new sys- 
tem *of divine administration in the^ moral affairs of 
mankind, sought to be rectified in these pages, is the 
idea that very early in the history of men, God prom- 
ised a Saviour to the world, to be furnished in some 
future age. And this idea they claim to get from 
Gen. iii. 15, where we read, " It shall bruise thy 
head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." And then, 
as if to make the matter sufficiently ridiculous, the 
divine promise is regarded as being announced to 
mankind in this precise form of words ; so that the 
entire sum of human knowledge for four thousand 
years was these exact words spoken to the devil ; and 
it would seem presumable, though it is not so stated, 
that the words were spoken in the hearing of Adam 
or Eve, or perhaps both. 

From these words alone it would be impossible for 
rational men to come to the conclusion that the 
world at some future time was to have a Saviour, 
and if so, what that Saviour was to do for mankind. 
From this teaching we learn that the seed of the 
woman would bruise the head of Satan. But when, 
where, how, to what end, for* what purpose, and 
several other things easily conceived as necessary 



The Ancient Promise of a Saviour. 225 

to a rational understanding of the declaration, are 
not alluded to. So of what advantage could such 
a declaration be to mankind ? 

Moreover, it could not be very consoling to men 
then, to be informed that the world, away in future 
ages, perhaps some thousands of years thence, would 
have a Saviour. It reminds one of the child who 
came crying with hunger to his father, who replied, 
" Never mind my son, I'm going to plant some beans 
to-morrow." The promise was sadly inadequate. 

God never promised the world a Saviour. - On the 
contrary. He furnished the world a Saviour, full, 
complete, adequate in all the functions of Saviourship 
at the very first. From the first, Christ, our only- 
Saviour, was in full sympathy and activity. Then, 
there, and not four thousand years afterward. He 
undertook our cause. He began at the beginning, at 
the right time, at the right place, and in the right 
way. And He will finish it, not partially, but fully, 
completely, in the shortest time possible. The bruis- 
ing of that head was a far greater work than many 
seem to think. A little has been done towards it 
already, and the prediction will be fulfilled. In four 
or five thousand years, or thereabouts, Christ mani- 
fested Himself to men, continuing his work uninter- 
ruptedly. 

What we read in Genesis is the language of Moses ; 
what he wrote, in exceeding brief, laconic language, 
many hundred years afterward, about God's early 
teachings to mankind. How voluminous or exten- 
sive in detail these teachings were, or indeed exactly 
how they were communicated, we are not informed ; 
but we are obliged to beheve they were quite suffi- 
ciently voluminous to be fully intelHgible and prac- 

15 



226 The City of Qod. 

tical. They were wisely and mercifully communi- 
cated to rational and intelligent beings for their 
practical advantage. It is impossible to suppose 
they, as a whole, fell short of making up a complete, 
intelligible, rational, religious system, in full accord 
with everything else revealed in Scripture. • The 
supposition that it consisted wholly in this expression, 
" It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his 
heel," looks exceedingly Lilliputian. That was the 
sum of it. Moses wrote history. His history of the 
antediluvian age, and particularly the fore part of 
it, is very laconic. What occurred, in full detail, is 
one thing ; what Moses wrote to us about it is quite 
another. This is the nature of all history. If Moses 
had written ten thousand times more than he^ did, 
which certainly might have been, it would proba- 
bly be of but httle benefit to us. He wrote what 
he wrote, and no more. 

But he certainly did not write that God promised 
that we should have a Saviour in some future age. 



The First Church Council at Jerusalem. 227 



THE FIRST CHURCH COUNCIL AT JERUSA- 
LEM. 

The 15th chapter of Acts contains a very brief no- 
tice of some misunderstanding or disturbance in the 
Church at Antioch, about the necessity or propriety 
of continuing the rite of circumcision, and no doubt 
other such obsolete ceremonies in the Church, which 
seems to have been quieted by referring the matter 
to the brethren at Jerusalem. Much more has been 
made out of this affair than was ever dreamed 
of by those who participated in it. It was not at all 
unnatural or unlikely that such a question should 
arise, nor that it should be quieted in the way it was, 
without supposing any legal jurisdiction over such 
questions to have resided with " the apostles and 
elders " at Jerusalem. 

Those who raised this question and favored the 
continuance of the rite, were believers, — they "be- 
lieved." Believed what ? Evidently they were 
members of the Church, and believed that Jesus was 
the Christ. This was the only question then rife in 
the Church. 

Let it be understood that the ceremonies that dis- 
continued in that period were exclusively those 
which, in their external aspects and teachings, pointed 
forward to the only atoning sacrifice of Christ ; and 



228 The City of Qod, 

the discontinuance was because that sacrifice had 
now transpired. Christ had now made Himself 
visible to the eyes of men ; not that He now began 
to atone for sin, for He was no more a Saviour now, 
than He had always been. But He had now ap- 
peared ; and so those teaching ceremonies that ad- 
umbrated the appearance must, of course, cease. 

But it was not perfectly easy for every one, at the 
first, to see and understand this necessity. Habit 
had very deeply established these ceremonies. Many, 
no doubt, did not well understand the reason for 
them, and so, of course, they would be still more 
slow to understand a reason for their discontinuance. 
There was certainly no authoritative abrogation of 
them, else it would .be easy to point to the decree, 
and there would be no necessity of sending to Jerusa- 
lem, to consult apostles and brethren about this ques- 
tion, nor any necessity that the brethren at Jerusa- 
lem should come together tO consider this matter, nor 
give opinions or sentence about it. 

How both these things can be believed, is indeed 
strange. And yet we are, in hundreds of places, 
taught, first, that the whole " Ceremonial Law," as 
they call it, of course including circumcision, was 
formally and authoritatively abolished by our Sav- 
iour ; and then, that twenty years afterward, a 
Church council was convened to consider, and give 
sentence, whether circumcision should be continued 
or not in the Church. But if you understand this 
Church council in any sort of proper sense, it is as 
easy to believe both things, contradictory as they are, 
as to believe either. 

Nothing is more easy now to see, than that the 
discontinuance forever of circumcision, passover, etc., 



The First Church Council at Jerusalem, 229 

was a necessary consequence of Christ's human ap- 
pearance and visible work ; but it does by no means 
follow, that all would readily see it then. These 
were great and important matters, more new then 
than now. It would naturally take some time for 
the mind of the Church to settle and adjust itself. 
Som'e would see more readily than others. This, and 
all such hke disputes, in those times, for there were 
many, were very natural. 

But why was this question referred from Antioch 
to Jerusalem ? Why not refer it to any other 
Church ? There were scores, hundreds, yea thou- 
sands, all over the country. 

A Romanist would answer this by saying that the 
newly formed Christian Church had its headquarters, 
its president and council, in that city, and that there 
only could an authoritative decision be had, for these 
apostles only could dispense the new religion. 

But suppose there was, or had been, no new 
Church or new religion, then how stands the case ? 
Then and in that case, there was no more of Church 
authority in the Church at Jerusalem, than at Anti- 
och, Cesarea, Damascus, Joppa, or churches of Mace- 
donia, or elsewhere. Who made James, or Peter 
either, a supreme president of a supreme Church 
council ? And what becomes of the question whether 
the name of the first president was Peter or some- 
thing else, since there was no such first Church or 
first president ? 

It is seen therefore at a glance that this whole no- 
tion of supreme authority in the apostles and elders 
at Jerusalem, is inseparable from and rests wholly 
upon the Romish fiction of a new Church and new 
rehgion. Let this be reduced to sober truth, and the 



230 The City of God. 

whole fabric is reduced to ruins. And then, also, 
this great question, great in the estimation of some, 
whether Peter or something else was the name of the 
supreme bishop, is disposed of without any great 
logical crash, by seeing that the entire story is a 
fiction. There was no new Church. 

Nevertheless, nothing is more natural than the 
rise among honest Christians, at Antioch, of this 
question about the Church rites with which they had 
all been familiar all their lives ; nor than that Paul 
and Barnabas should "go up to Jerusalem, unto 
the apostles and elders, about this question," that 
they should gravely consider it, and give their advice 
and counsel, and write a letter of greeting to their 
brethren away yonder in Syria, in Antioch, and 
Cilicia, about the matter. 

They in Syria knew very well that in Jerusalem 
they would meet, most likely, some of the apostles 
and other grave elders of age and wisdom who had 
had much personal intercourse with Jesus, and whose 
advice would be almost, if not quite certain to quiet 
the minds of the brethren. In that age much more 
than in this, learning, wealth, wisdom, and influence 
of all kinds concentrated in the cities, and especially 
in the larger ones. Jerusalem was not only much the 
largest and oldest city in the land, but was the great 
religious capital, and had been for many hundred 
years. But the Church, the entire Church, had 
neither at that time, nor any other, any general 
acknowledged synod, conference, or assembly. The 
Sanhedrim we read so much about in that city had 
no acknowledged jurisdiction beyond Southern Judea, 
and perhaps more or less at times in Galilee. Sama- 
ria, and all Grecian and African countries had their 



The First Church Council at Jerusalem. 231 

own Church governments. So that it was very 
natural and proper that these people in Syria should 
send to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for ad 
vice and counsel, but not for any legal decision about 
this question. Let it be well understood, that the 
Church in those ages, during every day of those 
ages, was scattered thousands of miles over the known 
world; much of it in interior countries, with very 
slow and difficult intercommunication. Many think 
and write about it as a thing to be seen at one time 
and one place, whereas it was so situate and con- 
ditioned that, as a whole, it could understand itself 
about nothing under a number of years. We see 
that this great question of the Christship in Jesus 
was not settled in all the Church for a long time, 
probably thirty years or more. 

Circumcision, and these other ceremonies, did not, 
therefore, cease all at once. It required time, and 
thought, and habit, for the Church to adjust itself to 
their entire disuse. Men conformed their thoughts 
and conduct to the truth and apostolic teachings, as 
they better and better understood the remarkable 
circumstances through which they were so rapidly 
and strangely passing. I say strange because, strik- 
ingly unlike all other men that ever lived, they lived 
both before and after the life»and death of Jesus. 
They saw and felt the Chui-ch pass through the most 
unique and wonderful crisis and period of its history, 
actual or possible. This period was necessarily brief, 
and in that country necessarily presented the most 
rapid succession of thrilling scenes, at times almost 
bewildering, and of the most vital importance. 

The thought would not necessarily occur to every 
one that such and such particular ceremonies would 



232 The City of God. 

be contradictory after the death of Jesus. The rea- 
son for the non-user was the same then as now, but 
many did not readily see it ; and though it was con- 
stantly taught by the apostles and others, yet, Uke 
any other teaching, it was not always promptly and 
readily received and appreciated. Many do not seep 
to see its reasons very clearly now. 

It was not by any means at Antioch alone, and on 
this occasion, that this question arose and troubled 
the Church ; we have frequent intimations of the 
same tiling at other times and in other parts of the 
Church. Two things, however, are certain : First, 
circumcision was not discontinued by any formal en- 
actment of abrogation, or decree, as many writers 
teach : if so, there had been no disputation or differ- 
ent opinions about it. And secondly, the Church at 
Jerusalem, its council or its bishops, had no more 
legal authority or jurisdiction over the question than 
the Church anywhere else. That Church no doubt 
had its bishop, but he was no more, in a legal sense, 
than any other pastor of any other Church. He, no 
doubt, stood prominently above most other bishops ; 
but if so, it was because of his age, talents, wisdom, 
and opportunities for the best information, and not 
because of any legal authority. 

But whether this council, if any one chooses so to 
denominate it, was presided over by James, or Peter, 
or somebody else, or why by James, instead of Peter, 
might be questions of some interest among High 
Churchmen, who could probably interest themselves 
in such a debate. But it is clearly impossible that 
any but a High Churchman could participate in 
such debate, because all such questions, in every 
aspect they present, suppose and grow out of the 



The First Church Council at Jerusalem. 233 

doctrine of a new Church and new religion then and 
there set up for the first time. 

Then let any man understand that the supposition 
that this council at Jerusalem had any general juris- 
diction, is inseparable from, and indeed is but part 
and parcel of the supposition of a new Church and 
new religion. And then let him not forget as he 
passes, that a new Church, at any time, is a natural 
and philosophical impossibility, Avith not a word of 
either Scripture or reason to support it. And that a 
new religion, or any new doctrines at any time since 
the days of Adam, is necessarily a false religion. 

Let these necessary things be understood, and let 
it not be forgotten that the people then and there 
were natural people ; that they thought, reasoned, and 
acted, much as we ourselves would be likely to do in 
such circuinstances ; and we shall find no great diffi- 
culty in understanding this council at Jerusalem. 

A hard lesson for many people to learn is that 
changes, often very considerable changes, in external 
manners are necessary in order to maintain consist- 
ency of principle. This was the case with the Church 
of that age, in a most remarkable degree. 

In understanding the Scriptures, as in construing 
any other writing, we must be careful not to violate 
well attested facts, or well* settled principles. The 
introduction of a new religion, and the setting up of 
a new Church, by Jesus Christ, or under his author- 
ity, is, when looked, nay when glanced at, with a 
sober eye, a transparent error ; and, looked at spe- 
cifically, it cannot stand for a single moment. It is 
both historically untrue, and philosophically impos- 
sible. While it has been asserted a thousand times, 
no man ever even attempted to summon proof, or to 



234 The City of God, 

make an argument to support it. It is . not only the 
pillar, but the sole pillar of all objectionable Roman- 
ism. 

Scripture must be maintained inviolate, both in its 
integrity and consistency. Then we must not on- 
any account, for any circumstances of convenience, or 
for any reasons, construe Scripture so as to make a 
court, a council, or anything of the sort, suppose, 
require, or assent to such ascertained error. Some 
other construction must be found. 

Now read all that portion of the chapter before us ; 
and if you read with care and without prejudice, you 
will be surprised almost at the simplicity and natural- 
ness of the narration. To give anything then at Je- 
rusalem even the tinge of a forensic, legal, or judicial 
appearance, among those honest hearted apostles and 
brethren, in their simple, easy, wise, and discreet at- 
tempt to reconcile the troubles away yonder in Syria, 
you are obliged to screw up, force, and hyperconstrue 
the simple literature, and also imagine and add to the 
condition of things greatly, before you can make out 
of it anything of the nature of Church court, or legal 
council with authority to decree and decide theolog- 
ical questions. 

And if that " first, council " possessed the judicial 
authority attributed to itf upon what ground do you 
ignore similar authority in a similar council, which 
sat in Rome in 1870 ? 



The Kingdom of Heaven, 235 



VI. 
. THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. 

It is written in the third chapter of Matthew that 
John, called the Baptist, came preaching and exhort- 
ing the people to repent, for that the kingdom of 
heaven was at hand. What we read here, it should 
be remembered, is the language of Matthew, not of 
John. Matthew, fifteen or twenty years afterward, 
;writes, historically, about what John did and said. 
He uses his own language in notes of great brevity. 
In this place his language is exceedingly laconic, 
barely intimating the general 'burden, substance, or 
at least some of the general things about which John 
preached. We learn first that John preached. We 
know what preaching is. And in his preaching, he 
brought forward the subjects of repentance and the 
kingdom of heaven. In this we see nothing new, 
though from the manner in which the thing is men- 
tioned, rather than from the mention itself, we should 
suppose it probable that John, when he went out 
into these country settlements to preach, made the 
subjects of repentance and the kingdom of heaven 
more prominent than other preachers were wont to 
do in those times. 

The supposition of its being entirely new to preach 
repentance might, perhaps, be excused in fanciful 
sophomoric theologians who hail been taught so, but 



236 The City of God, 

it is as well known as anything else in Scripture, 
that repentance and the kingdom of heaven had been- 
always preached everywhere, by preachers generally, 
for thousands of years. Certainly Abel, Noah, and 
all the prophets preached it. And when John 
preached it, he only preached what he read all 
through his Bible. Nevertheless there was, no 
doubt, just then and there, great need that these 
things be made prominent in a practical ministry. 

Th^ words '' at hand," " the kingdom of heaven 
is at hand," have attracted the attention of some 
theologians so as to make the words mean that a 
new kingdom was about to be introduced. And 
then a lively imagination connects this idea of a new 
kingdom to be introduced with a prophecy of Daniel 
ii. 44, where he says, " In the days of these kings 
shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom," etc. 
And the two passages are made to support the doc- 
trine of the introduction of a new kingdom of Christ, 
meaning thereby a new system of religion, that is, 
new rules and conditions of salvation, and a new 
Church. 

It is evident that this supposed relation between 
these two passages of Scripture is entirely depend- 
ent on the preconceived supposition of a new reUgion 
being introduced into the world, at the time of the 
Saviour's advent. Remove this idea ; let it be once 
supposed that the conditions of salvation in the days 
of Adam are the conditions always ; that Christ, in 
the days of his advent, introduces no new system 
of religion ; and then it is impossible* to talk about 
setting up a new, spiritual, religious kingdom, for 
the two expressions mean one and the same thing. 
A system of religion i* a spiritual kingdom. A spir- 



The Kingdom of Heaven. 237 

itual kingdom is a system of religion. In this sense 
the t^rms are synonymous. 

The word kingdom^ with a large class of words of 
about the same meaning, such as throne^ sceptre ^ 
dominion, etc., are used many hundred times in Scrip- 
ture. They all mean nearly the same thing, namely, 
the authority, rule, or control which God rightly 
possesses and exercises over the hearts and hves of 
men. The temporal idea of kingdom — power, au- 
thority, etc. — is seen at a glance ; and the spiritual 
idea, which the same words represent, is easily seen, 
if we but notice the simplicity of Scripture language, 
and avoid hair-splitting interpretations. 

What is religion ? It is obedience to God. It is 
the promptly accepted, ready, unresisted rule, au- 
thority, or kingly control of God through Christ in 
the heart and life of man. Obedience, unquestion- 
ing, implicit, and full obedience, is the utmost any 
man ever did or can do ; it comprehends the whole 
subject. How easy then is it to transfer the idea 
of the temporal rule of a king over his subjects to 
the moral and spiritual rule of the Almighty over 
his ! The loyal subjects of a king obey the laws of 
the kingdom promptly and readily. They meet 
fully all their civil obligations. And so, rehgious 
people obey the laws of God in like manner. They 
are loyal subjects of that kingdom. How natural, 
then, to speak of a religious kingdom, to people so 
well acquainted with a civil kingdom ! 

So it is in this figurative sense that rehgion, or re- 
ligious people, or collectively the Church, is called 
a kingdom. The submission to divine authority, as 
expressed in Scripture, is like the civil submission 
in the other case. When, therefore, we speak of 



238 The City of God, 

Christ's kingdom, or read it in Scripture, the king- 
dom of .God, kingdom of heaven, etc., expressions 
with which the Scriptures abound, that we are in it, 
or belong to it, we easily understand the meaning as 
submission to the divine authority ; the absolute rule 
of God in the hearts of. men, in and through Christ, 
as this system of rule and dependence is set forth in 
Scripture. 

Now did this divine rule, control, authority, this 
spiritual supremacy in the hearts of men, begin at 
the time of the Saviour's advent or at the first? 
That is the same as to ask. Did God begin to save 
men from sin through Christ at the first, or at the 
time of his human advent ? Did the prophets teach 
the same principles of salvation as the apostles ? 
Did Jesus set up a new religion? Does the New 
Testament contain conditions of salvation different 
from the Old ? 

To ask these questions is to indicate the answer 
unmistakably. They are not debatable questions. 
No two men can answer them differently. And it 
would be idle to suggest such questions, were it not 
for the fact that a number of Protestant authors do 
teach, unmistakably, the introduction of a new relig- 
ion entire, in the time of Jesus and the apostles. 
Strange inconsistency ; as palpable as it is strange ! 

Right here, exactly here, is the point of diver- 
gence between Romanism and Protestantism. Pop- 
ery supposes a new religion, a new kingdom. And 
thus arises her teaching as to how this was done ; 
what new tenets, what new Church authority, what 
office the first bishop Peter held, etc., to the end of 
a long chapter. But upon supposition that no new 
kingdom at all was set up, there can be no debate as 
to how it was done. 



The Kingdom of Heaven. 239 

We ought not to debate questions until we get to 
them. Debates, where there is no rational issue, are 
unprofitable. The passage in Daniel, as sometimes 
interpreted, is put to a very great and unnatural ten- 
sion by supposing it to describe the great Fifth Mon- 
archy. That fable has long since ceased to attract 
attention. Before any inquiry about it can be set 
up, it is necessary to suppose that the principles, 
mode, and means of salvation, in vogue at and before 
the time of Jesus, came to an end. This, as a spe- 
cific doctrine, is absurd. It is more than simply un- 
true. That the world was left four thousand years 
or more — for we have no certain ancient chronology 
— without true religion, as true and good as the 
world has now ; or that any part of it was without 
revealed religion, only exactly as that is the case 
now ; and that a fuller,* or better religious system 
became necessary ; all this is so palpably at war 
with everything taught in Scripture, that it is a 
wonder that even the cause of Popery ever resorted 
to such. strange fancies. 

There is not a word in Daniel, nor anywhere else, 
that alludes to a new kingdom, or anything new in 
the principles, conditions, or means of salvation. 
These were fixed at the first, and always the same. 
The kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, the 
kingdom of heaven, are always and everywhere 
spoken of as universal, spontaneous, everywhere pres- 
ent, everywhere accessible, everywhere in force, 
everywhere available. Chronology and history do 
not divide or limit it ; neither do geography or lines 
of civil jurisdiction affect or improve it. 

There were some few, we know not how many, 
in the Saviour's time, who had this same notion of 



240 The City of aod, 

a kingdom of God to be set up at that time. (See 
Luke xvii. 20-27.) And they inquired of Jesus" 
when this was to be done. His reply ought to have 
been satisfactory both then and now, but it was not. 
He told them there was, or was to be, no such king- 
dom as they inquired about. " The kingdom of 
God Cometh not with observation." It is not some 
new thing to be seen. It is not something historic, 
something outward, observable, phenomenal, some- 
thing to occur in these days. It is already. " The 
kingdom of God is within you." It is spontaneous, 
not occasional. It is universal, not special. It is 
not something to come, but something that is now. 
You have only to submit to it. 

And if any would understand the Saviour's reply 
to mean that the kingdom, or a kingdom of God, 
was indeed about to be set up, as a new phenomenal 
or observable thing, but not with such visible aspects 
and appearances as some anticipated, let him under- 
stand that that is supposing the absurdity of a new 
religion and new Church, dating at that time. 

The phrase " at hand," as in Matt. iii. 2, does by 
no means, as many seem to suppose, always refer to 
something future. Webster says it means, " Near in 
time or place, either present and vrithin reach, or not 
far distant." It is used about thirty times in Scrip- 
ture, and it sometimes refers to something then pres- 
ent, and sometimes to the future. (See 1 Sam. ix. 
8 ; Jer. xxiii. 23 ; Ezek. xii. 23 ; Matt. xxvi. 46 ; 
Mark xiv. 42 ; John ii. 13 ; Phil. iv. 5, etc.) 

It is not denied but the prophecy in Daniel has 
reference to the post-messianic period of the Church; 
it is only intimated, for nothing is needed but an 
intimation, that no new kingdom or new system of 
grace was introduced at the period in question. 



The Kingdom of Heaven, 241 

The kingdom of heaven, we are told, " signifies 
the gospel dispensation." That is true, provided you 
understand the gospel dispensation to signify the dis- 
pensation of salvation, or the dispensation of grace, 
in which God saves men from perdition through 
Christ, L g., by faith in Christ, and obedience to the 
laws of repentance. But the entire teaching and 
drift of Scripture is ignored, when we are told that 
this kingdom was about to appear, or shortly to ap- 
pear, in the days of John. We know very well that 
the same gospel dispensation we have now, and about 
which John preached so well, existed four thousand 
years or more, before "he preached. The dispensation 
of salvation was as fully known to Abel, and Noah, 
as to John. The light and the facility of teaching 
were not so great, we all know ; but that the same 
system of grace existed is equally well known. One 
day may be dark and cloudy, and the next, a bright 
sunshine. That indicates the renioval of clouds, but 
not the creation of the sun. Before the life and 
death of Jesus, thousands and millions of men had 
faith in Christ. Among them are many of the 
highest examples of Christian faith known to the 
history of religion. But of course none in that age 
had faith in Jesus, for Jesus had not been seen. The 
incarnate did not exist. 

Now we all know that after Christ was manifest 
in the person of Jesus, the favorable results of the 
manifestation were enjoyed by the Church, and by 
mankind generally ; religious teaching was more 
facile, more easy of inculcation, more readily dis- 
cerned. This is a very different thing from the crea- 
tion and introduction of a new system of religion, 
with new conditions of salvation. The system of 

16 



242 The City of God. 

astronomy is the same it always was, notwithstanding 
the introduction of the artificial globe and telescope. 
The system of rehgion now is the very same in 
Madagascar and in the best theological schools. The 
kingdom is, and always remains the same, though its 
spread and inculcation are greatly faciUtated by the 
visible state of its Christ, its king. 

But when told, as we are by Dr. D wight, that, 
" As the Mediator, Jesus Christ began to exisf at 
the birth of the man, Jesus Christ," we cannot un- 
derstand the meaning except in violation of the 
plainest and best settled principles of Christian 
truth. That the world had no Mediator until the 
incarnation of the Mediator, is as clumsy an idea as 
could well be conceived. Again, he says, " This 
person, it is plain, had received no kingdom, until his 
ascension into heaven." Then it is by no means 
plain what person he is talking about. 

Salvation was ojffered to all mankind, in full time 
for its acceptance, before any man died. The condi- 
tions upon which it was offered were one and the 
same, unaltered and unalterable. These conditions 
imply sovereignty, rule, or dominion, on the one 
hand, which is called a kingdom, by a very simple 
figure ; and on the other hand, by the same compari- 
son, the submissive obedience required places the 
subjects, by similar metonymy, in the attitude of a 
kingdom. The kingdom of God is within you. 



The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, 243 



VII. 

THE REFORMATION OF THE SIXTEENTH 
CENTURY. 

It was impossible that the fundamental principles 
of Romanism could be developed and understood from 
the bottom, at the first, in the sixteenth century, or 
for a long time afterwards. There was not a man in 
Europe but had grown up with stereotyped and un- 
questioned ideas of government, exceedingly unfavor- 
able to such development. The things objected to 
by the Reformers were not defended on the ground 
of their usefulness, their merit, or their accordance 
with either the scope or the letter of Scripture, but on 
the ground of Church authority. " The Church says 
so," was a complete answer to every objection. In 
the habitudes of the people, there was no clear dis- 
tinction between civil and ecclesiastical government. 
There was none in practice. The two jurisdictions 
were but partially separate. The complaints against 
the usages of the Church which led to the Reforma- 
tion, exceedingly well put and well sustained as far 
as they went, were leveled only against the things 
they saw. They declared that these things were im- 
proper, useless, and unlawful. And when it was in- 
sisted and reiterated that " the Church says so," it 
was responded, — " These unlawful acts are those of 
Church officers, beyond their lawful jurisdiction, out- 



244 The City of aod, 

side the Church constitution." And the question be- 
tween Romanists and Protestants, from that day to 
this, has been, mainly, whether the primary Church 
authority did or did not authorize those things spe- 
cifically objected to, . without stopping to inquire 
whether there was any such primary Church author- 
ity or not. 

And now it is here held, that this plea of the Prot- 
estants, however well put, as far as it lay, against the 
matters objected to, was nevertheless an acknowl- 
edgment of a great and fundamental error in eccle- 
siastical science in favor of Popery, and amounts to 
an estoppel to the most important argument in the 
case. It virtually acknowledges a divine Church 
constitution, governing the external matters of social 
religion. And so the Romish party defended them- 
selves by claiming that the government of the Church 
being divinely framed, the jurisdiction of its officers 
must descend perpetually ; and so, this authority be- 
ing divine, it cannot, of course, be inquired into by 
unofficial men. 

To this it was replied, that the Church could not 
have been organized on such basis, because the teach- 
ings of Jesus in organizing the Church must harmo- 
nize with other divine teachings. The question was 
not whether Church authority in the time of the 
apostles was divine authority. This was virtually 
conceded. The question was. What is this divine 
Church authority ? The Protestants said, The Scrip- 
tures, when they are clear, must govern ; and so we 
Qiust presume the original Church constitution to 
have been framed that way. While Romanists con- 
tended that a divine Church constitution must be 
mfallible, and must descend infallibly, and so the 



The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, 245 

Scriptures must be construed that way, for the Church 
teachings must be right. Here it is seen that an 
original Church charter, or constitution, or law of 
Church government, or the formation or organization 
of the Church of Christ, call it what you will, as 
divinely ordained in the apostles' days, is conceded. 

It is strange that it did not occur to the Protes- 
tants, but it did not, that there was no divine Church 
constitution at all, fixing either this or that in Church 
government. But we now see that this was the form 
in which the argument was mainly conducted, and is 
still conducted. 

The Romanist asserts the authority of the Church, 
that it is divine. The original Church, he says, has 
merety descended to oiu- times just as its original 
framers left it. The Protestant says the Church has 
diverged from the original model, because it now 
varies from Scripture. Thus the controversy contin- 
ues. The formation of a new Church, and introduc- 
tion of a new religion is admitted ; and the question 
is, how was the former arranged, and what are the 
principles and constituents of the latter ? 

When certain usages are objected to by Protes- 
tants, as opposed to Scripture, it is replied, " That 
may seem so to unsanctified, i.e.^ out of the Church, 
human judgment, but these things accord with 
divine revelation ; the Church is as divine as the 
Scripture, and so this is but an attempt to oppose 
divine doings here, with divine doings there. 

This is the disadvantage the Protestant oftentimes 
labors under. He acknowledges the Church to be a 
di\4ne revelation, that is, a divine institution, in that 
the constitution of its government is divinely pre- 
scribed ; and in opposing Romanism, he is obliged to 



246 The City of Qod. 

oppose Church revelation to Scripture revelation. 
He makes a good argument as far as it goes. He 
says these things are anti-Scriptural, and therefore 
erroneous. But the Romanist answers, " How can 
that be ? How can one form of revelation be sup- 
posed to conflict with another form ? " 

The Protestant who says the Church is a " divine 
institution," or who talks about an " original Church 
of Christ," original in the days of the apostles, or 
about a new Church, or any of the thousand expres- 
sions of the same import, is hardly aware that he is. 
virtually, by fair implication, affirming the doctrine 
of Church infallibility. And yet such is the purport 
of such declarations. If Jesus Christ revealed a 
Church constitution, or law of government, ^. e., in- 
stituted a Church, then it must have descended infal- 
libly, or is as likely to have done so as that the writ- 
ing of Scripture did so. 

So it is easy to see the disadvantage or unnecessary 
weight the Protestant carries, who makes the admis- 
sion that our Saviour formed a Church. Why admit 
what is not only untrue in fact, but so greatly dam- 
aging in this argument ? Why not deny perempto- 
rily, at the threshold, that there is revelation at all, 
or inspiration at all, or divinity at all, in the laws of 
Church association? The true course is for High 
Churchmen of all classes to be required first to prove 
that a Church was organized in the days of Jesus at 
all. Who would undertake to face such a question 
fairly ? The suggestion once made, any man must 
see that it is preposterous. 

The question then arises. Why has not this point 
been made and brought prominently forward long 
before ? This question, it must be confessed, may 



The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century. 247 

not be easily answered. Perhaps the most satisfac- 
tory sohition may be found in this, that our ecclesi- 
astical history and thinking comes through England. 
In England everything is monarchical and hereditary. 
All public authority is transmitted or transmissive. 
The inherited thoughts and habitudes of the people 
were such, that the effort there to get the Church 
out of this channel of thought was more than could 
be expected. The Romish Church had interwoven 
the idea of transmitted Church authority into the 
very warp and woof of every thmg ecclesiastical, not 
indeed as a question, but as a matter not admit- 
ting of question. There was no (Question about apos- 
tolical Church origin. It was a well understood 
axiom from which all Church questions were rea- 
soned. The great question of the Reformation was 
debated on other grounds, where, indeed, there was 
no lack of material in the then present state of the 
public mind. 

As in Germany, so in England, the Protestants con- 
tented themselves with charging and proving against 
the Papists, " You have departed from the Church." 
This they did to their everlasting renown, and the 
honor of Christianity. But the debates did not nec- 
essarily, and did not in fact, raise and make promi- 
nent the question of a Church departure, in the six- 
teenth century, or the seventeenth, from the external 
usages of the same historic Church of the first cen- 
tury, it having been set up and made working under 
an infalHble rule, and the divine promise of infallible 
direction. Whether the Church from which Papists 
had departed was the Church they alleged to have 
been organized anew by our Saviour, or a Church 
consonant to the religion of Scripture, is a question 



248 The City of Qod. 

which, vital as it is in ecclesiastical science, did not 
enter prominently into those debates. English 
Methodists conteirted themselves with showing that 
they were not departing from the general ground 
occupied by the Church of England; while other 
dissenters showed that they were keeping within 
the lines of Scripture. 

It is a far greater wonder that the question of the 
apostolic Church, what it was and what it was not, 
has not been raised in the United States, where these 
controversies have run high, and where the mind was 
more free, the scope of investigation more ample. 

But it must be confessed, we Americans have not 
made much use of these advantages. Where is the 
book on either theology or ecclesiastical science that 
has been written in America ? We have ^ number 
compiled here, but where are those written here ? 
They are few indeed. We go to England for all our 
thinking. Cramped, iron-clad, tight-bound English 
thought, which was drawn out and shaped under the 
clouds and pressure of one or two hundred years ago, 
form the staple of American thinking to-day ! 

This ding-dong repetition of English argument and 
EngUsh ideas, drawn from the times of the Reforma- 
tion or near there, when it was impossible there could 
be much of clear, independent thinking about it, be- 
yond the simple fact that the Church as reformed 
is inside the Scriptures, and the Popish Church, much 
of it, outside, may be excusable in European authoi*s. 
But why in this country, if not in that, has not the 
argument been carried much farther ? Why has not 
this supposed model Church, this new Church, this 
divine institution, this embryo Church, in the college 
of the apostles, why has not all this been long since 



The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century. 249 

denied as a Popish fiction and monstrous untruth ? 
Why do writers of the nineteenth century tacitly or 
plainly admit that the apostles made a new Church, 
the then existing Church being abolished ? Why 
give Romanists or any other High Churchmen this 
foothold ? It is as untrue in fact as it is damaging in 
policy. 

Mr. R. I. Wilberforce, an English pervert to the 
Romish Church, says, " Now that a parai?iount au- 
thority was possessed by our Lord himself, and that 
He committed the like to his holy apostles, is admit- 
ted probably by all Christians." 

That in Jesus dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead 
bodily, and therefore that not only all authority, but 
all power was possessed by Him, is, of course, un- 
questioned ; but that He committed the like authority 
to the apostles, or to any other men, is unqualifiedly 
denied. There, right there, is the great High 
Church falsehood. And not only so, it is the only 
High Church error I know of that is fundamental. 
No Scripture underlies it, no deduction of reason sup- 
ports it. It is a myth. It must be denounced and 
exposed. • ' 

And so, consistent with this erroneous assump- 
tion, Mr. Wilberforce speaks of " the origin of the 
Church's powers ; " " its action depends upon his 
authority," etc. And he' inquires, " Was the Church 
then a -mere congeries of individuals gathered to- 
gether, and possessing no collective character except 
that which is derived from the conglomeration of its 
parts ? " 

I answer it is, and always was, a mere congeries of 
Christian people, gathered together by the gravitating 
and cohesive force of the religion possessed by the 



250 The City of God. 

individuals, and making their own laws of external 
association as the interest of their cause requires. 
The love of God and of the brethren keeps them to- 
gether, as conjugal and parental love keeps famiUes 
together. 

Thus it is that the Church results naturally and 
necessarily from the personal religion of the individ- 
uals. The one supposes the other. They coinhere 
and coexist. The absence of the Church, in any com- 
munity, is the best evidence there can be of the ab- 
sence of religion. 

The inculcation and diffusion of a principle re- 
quires, necessitates, and supposes social combination 
and union. And then, as the principle, doctrine, or 
truth is important to human well being, and of gen- 
eral or universal application, the popularity of the 
union becomes extended, while the bonds of cohesicwQ 
become more and more definite, exact, and strength- 
ened in their operation. That is, they become more 
and more a government for the more definite and 
certain apphcation of labor within the purview of the 
enterprise. ' Here, and here alone, is found both the 
reason for, as well as the utihty of civil government, 
and of military, pohtical, educational, or merely in- 
dustrial enterprises. 

And when you apply this rule to religion, a matter 
of such intense interest to those who enjoy it, where 
the anxiety to spread and encourage it is equal to the 
degree of personal enjoyment, not only popular com- 
bination, but regularity of government and submis- 
sion to rule, are both natural and unavoidable. Re- 
ligion supposes and necessitates the Church. 



The Romish Church System. 251 



VIII. 
THE ROMISH CHURCH SYSTEM. 

It is by no means. my intention to write a treatise, 
or set down a catalogue of objections against the 
tenets of Popery. This would raise questions of 
controversy which I wish to avoid. I wish merely 
to state the question. This shall be done so fairly 
and impartially, that it shall not be objected to on 
either hand. 

The difference between Romanism and what Prot- 
estants call Christianity, is, in the first place, con- 
stitutional, or of a primary and fundamental charac- 
ter ; and secondly, in tenets, forms, and modes of 
worship which seem to grow out of, or be sanctioned 
by such first principles. The creed of the Roman 
Catholic is to believe in the Church and all her 
teachings. This is substantially the sum and sub- 
stance of it. The creed or confession of* faith which 
is most commonly used among them is that com- 
piled by Pius IV., and is " drawn up in conformity 
with the definitions of the Council of Trent." This 
is specifically set forth and recognized as official by 
Dr. Milner in his End of Controversy^ as may be seen 
at page 99. This creed consists of fifteen articles, 
and sets forth, first, such fundamental things as were 
never questioned by any people professing Christian- 
ity at aU; and secondly, refers everything to the 



252 The City of God. 

Churcli. The Koman Catholic believes what the 
Church believes, and because the Church beheves 
it. This is the sum of it. 

Church authority is, therefore, the fundamental 
principle. This Church authority is claimed to be 
derived directly from Christ, the frame-work of the 
Church, government being its vehicle of communi- 
cation. All the pecuHarities objected to by Protes- 
tants are mainly derived, plausibly, if not necessarily, 
from this fundamental principle. 

If the offices of Church government were divinely 
created, and the duties, powers, and functions of some 
of the different officers fixed by divine revelation, 
then that means that they were infallibly prescribed. 
And that means that such officers, and, as the Church 
was to continue, their successors, were to be pro- 
tected from error in discharging their particular du- 
ties so assigned. This protection we may suppose to 
work in the ordinary way of what we call inspiration 
for any other particular work. Inspiration does not 
make the man infallible. Paul said it did not so pro- 
tect Peter. It only protects men against error in 
discharging certain duties. And we cannot suppose 
any greater difficulty in inspiring men to govern a 
Church, under prescribed laws, than to write a book 
of Scripture. 

Supposing that Jesus Christ organized the Church 
society, appointing its first officers, prescribing their 
duties^ etc., we would be obliged to suppose that He 
appointed a head officer, by whatever name he might 
be designated ; and this would suppose that this 
divine direction would be of the same kind as that 
given to Matthew and Mark and others, to write the 
New Testament. And if the first president or chief 



The Romish Church System. 253 

ofl&cer was thus inspired or protected, it would cer- 
tainly be gratuitous to suppose that thenceforward 
such preternatural protection would cease. Why 
should we suppose the Church to be more fallible or 
less divinely protected in after years, than at the 
first ? Its necessities would be as great, if not greater. 

If the Church originated in the way we are sup- 
posing, then we can imagine ourselves to have been 
present at the meeting when it was done. The 
twelve apostles, or eleven, were present, and perhaps 
a few others. The Saviour explains to them the 
wholesale dissolution of the former Church ; and He 
administers to them the constitution of the new one 
to take its place. We are obliged to suppose the old 
was dissolved, because it lacked this constant, day by 
day, divine protection. It is impossible to imagine 
any other lack it could have suffered. Now we are 
about to have a permanent Church that shall lack 
nothing. Now Jesus says : " Here is your charter. 
Whatever incidental rules you may need as you go 
along, make them, but do not infringe upon these 
fundamental* pro visicTus. You, Peter (or you, some- 
body else), are president. When you cease to pre- 
side, this is the way the vacancy ^vill be filled. And 
so of the other officers ; and so I now, here, provide 
for the Church's perpetuity." 

The Church was then infallibly organized. Or, as 
some have it, the Church was organized on the day 
of Pentecost. This amounts to the same thing, for if 
so, it was done under directions previously given to 
the apostles. Any way it can be imagined, it was 
either inspired or uninspired. And as to its being 
uninspired, that is not supposable. Inspiration means 
the support, divine influence, and protection accom- 



254 The City of God, 

panying divine instructions respecting assigned duties 
to be performed. 

Now, when the first members stood thus in the 
presence of the Saviour, and the Saviour had finished 
dispensing to each ofl&cer the duties assigned him, 
was it not an infallible Church ? How could it be 
otherwise ? It must have been free from defect, be- 
cause we cannot suppose the Saviour to have made 
a defective Church. And then the question arises, 
how did it lose its infallibility ? How could divine 
provision be made for a fallible or defective Church ? 

All this does not imply human, but divine infalH- 
bility ; that is, it is divine inspiration, as we call it, 
in similar matters respecting other official functions, 
in other assigned duties. 

If the Church was made in the way supposed, then 
it could hardly be questioned that it might have been 
infallible, that the original infallibility might have 
been made to continue. We can hardly conceive of 
a reason why it should not be. The natural pre- 
sumption would seem to favor it. 

It would seem, then, that the -Protestant who con- 
cedes that the Church originated in this way, assumes 
the burden of proof as to how the Church lost its 
original infallibility. 

The objection urged against papal infallibility is 
that men are fallible. But in the condition of things • 
supposed, this is not the question. Everybody ac- 
knowledges that sometimes some men are inspired. 
The apostles were all inspired. Inspired to do what ? 
Merely to write what they wrote ? No ; their Scrip- 
ture writing was done ten, twenty, or thirty years 
after this time. "We suppose they were inspired to 
do all things pertaining to- the apostolate. Then we 



The Romish Church System. 255 

are obliged to suppose the first Church officers, and 
particularly the first president, to be inspired. Now 
did the Saviour inspire the first officers of a Church 
which was to continue forever, in the discharge of 
their duty, vdth the understanding that when they 
would fall, and their offices be filled by others, this 
protection would cease ? Is it too much to ask for 
some reason, either in Scripture, or the nature of the 
thing, why it should cease ? 

I can see very plainly why, outside of apostoKc 
functions, there should not be inspiration, because 
there need be no apostolic succession of the afflatus 
covering the apostles in the discharge of their duties. 
But that is not the case here. Here are men succeed- 
ing to, and performing the very same duties which 
were performed exclusively by apostles. Was it less 
important, less arduous, less necessary or useful for 
the welfare of the Church, viewed in any way, that 
the second or third presidents should be inspired, 
than that the first should be? If the same duty 
and same respdnsibihty, a duty and responsibility at 
one time peculiar to apostles, did not follow these 
succeeding official functionaries, then it would be un- 
reasonable to suppose the protection of inspiration 
would follow. But here is a case where the very 
same functions follow. Here the succeeding men 
are discharging the very same duties which one year, 
or one day ago, were especially and peculiarly appro- 
priate to apostles, and none else, and at a time, too, 
when it is impossible they ever could be more im- 
portant than now. Then why should we look for 
divine protection in the one case, and not in the 
other ? 

This, then, surely, cannot be a serious or funda- 



256 The City of God. 

mental question between Protestants and Roman 
Catholics. It lies further back. Let the Protestants 
deny at the outset that there was any such original 
Church, or any such first presidency, or any new 
Church. Let the Romanist first be required to show 
that there were any such first officers, that, is, any- 
thing of this nature to descend from man to man. 
Let it be readily granted, that all functions of the 
apostolate were covered by inspiration, but let it be 
denied that governing the Church is, or ever was an 
exclusive function of the apostolate. If we have not 
heretofore done so in the highest and most peremp- 
tory manner, it is high time ^\se were doing it. 

It may readily be believed that there is not a 
Roman Catholic argument extant that is not based 
squarely upon this supposed new Church formation. 
It is either expressed or implied everywhere. One 
of the best arguments I know of, in support of Rom- 
ish Church authority, is that of Mr. R. I. .Wilber- 
force. We might look at it again, because it is sub- 
stantially the same as stated everywhere. 

" Now, that a paramount authojjity was possessed 
by our Lord himself, and that He committed the like 
to his holy apostles, is admitted, probably, by all 
Christians. Authority to organize and govern the 
Church is here meant." Let that be granted, and it 
will be very difficult to disprove his argument. 

Again he says, " The Church's existence has been 
shown to result from Christ's coming in the flesM" . 

So, according to Romanism, the Church had no ex- 
istence before the incarnation. It could not be said 
that there was no association of religious people be- 
fore that time, but there was no Church corporation. 
The Church, then, is a corporation made at that 



The Romish Church System. 257 

period, and working under a divinely prescribed 
charter. This is the fundamental idea of Romanism, 
and the only idea it has that is fundamental. 

Then, I am not able to see the force of the loud 
and peremptory objections to Church infallibility, 
nor to a creed that requires mere subscription to the 
teachings of the Church. Infallibility might be re- 
garded an open and debatable question, with some- 
thing to be said on both sides. If I had to debate 
tlie question on that basis, I would greatly prefer the 
affirmative. If Christ enacted the Church charter 
eighteen hundred years ago, giving it the elements 
of perpetuity, then it is in the same condition now as 
if He had made it yesterday. Subscription to the 
Church is subscription to Christ. Obedience to the 
Church is obedience to Christ. To follow the Church 
is to follow Christ. The Church is the living, visible, 
practical, and real legate and representative of Christ 
on earth. 

Dr. Charles Elliott (on Romanism^ vol. i. p. 129) 
says, "It is not controverted between them and us 
whether Christ is the great foundation of his Church, 
for in this all are agreed." It may be doubtful what 
he means by great foundation. The figure is ambigu- 
•ous. He nowhere ignores or denies the Romish un- 
derstanding as stated above, that Christ is the maker 
of its fundamental laws of government ; that He pre- 
scribed its charter in t^rms. 

Then, I inquire, what is the vital, controlling ques- 
tion between Romanists and Protestants ? What 
one question will control and decide all others ? Evi- 
dently it is the question whether the Christian re- 
ligion and Christian Church originated kt the time 
and by authority of Jesus Christ. If these two 

17 



258 The City of Qod. 

things found their absolute origin then and there, 
then it follows necessarily, first, that the religion 
actually taught in the Old Testament is ignored, and 
should no longer form a part of Christian Scripture. 
And then we encounter the awkwardness of repudiat- 
ing Scripture books which teach exactly the same 
doctrines as the retained books. And secondly, we 
open the endless inquiry as to how the Church was 
first formed ; that is, how a thing was done which 
evidently was never done at all ! 



Momanism among Protestants, 259 



IX. 
ROMANISM AJSIONG PROTESTANTS. 

On a little reflection, if need be, the following 
propositions will not probably be questioned. 

First. There is but one thing in Romanism that 
is objected to by Protestants, of a fundamental char- 
acter. All other objectionable things are secondary, 
and grow out of this one thing. This. principal thing 
is, that Jesus Christ introduced a new system of re- 
ligion, and set up a new Church. 

Second. This remark will apply equally well to 
prelacy, to Campbellism, so called, and to all other 
forms of High Churchism. 

Third. This new Church and new religion is as- 
sented to, nay, it is taught, by many Protestant 
writers, who oppose not only Popery, but who oppose 
Campbellism and High Church Episcopacy. 

On these points a few explanatory observations 
might be profitable. The reason, and only reason, 
why Roman Catholics do not allow private judgment 
to question the acts of the Church, is certainly not 
unreasonable, if the Church is what they claim it to 
be. If Christ organized the government of the 
Church, set it going, gave it laws, provided for the 
mode of bringing in new officers, fixed their powers, 
assigned their duties, etc., all of which and much 
more is implied in the idea of organizing a new 



260 The City of Qod. 

Churcli \ and if He then, at the same time, set up a 
new religion, putting its teaching and inculcation in 
the custody of the Church ; then, in such case, both 
the Church and religion are divine revelations. They 
are not subjects of rational consideration. We have 
no more right to interfere v^ith either, or to exercise 
human judgment about either, than about another 
revelation that prescribes salvation on certain con- 
ditions. We do not judge whether prayer, repent- 
ance, keeping the Sabbath, etc., are suitable enact- 
ments in religion. We receive them as divinely pre- 
scribed or revealed. And so also of the Church ; if 
its laws of government and authority are divinely 
revealed, what right have unofl&cial men to say this 
is erroneous, and that is unnecessary ? 

On the principle that the Church is, in this sense, 
a divine institution, it is a complete and sufficient an- 
swer to objections against auricular confession, virgin 
worship, seven sacraments, penance, priestly forgive- 
ness, prayers for the dead, etc., to say. The Church 
says so. If the Church, in its outward frame- work, is 
a divine institution, and it says so, how can it be 
wrong ? Is not one form of revelation as good and 
as infallible as another form ? Suppose we stood in 
this newly formed Church, in the presence of the 
Saviour, and the president, ruling bishop, or what- 
ever you may choose to call the chief officer, should 
direct any practice, or ordain any tenet now seen in 
Romanian, would we not receive it upon his mere 
dictum — other officers then present assenting — with- 
out attempting to set up our judgment, or interpose 
other revelations in objection ? And if Church au- 
thority, as such, was good then, is it not equally good 
now ? If the Church was an institution of that sort, 



Romanism among Protestants. ^61 

and was to continue, then it contained the means of 
continuance. The succeeding officers stood squarely 
in the tracks of the first ones, receiving all their au- 
thority. 

It follows, then, that all the peculiar things ob- 
jected to in Romanism, rest upon and grow directly 
out of this supposed divine authority in the Church. 
Let this be removed, and then the government of the 
Church being human, other human judgment may 
properly come in. It is then human judgment here 
against human judgment there. But if the Church 
is a divine institution, these objections to it are 
human judgment against divine provisions. 

A Church acting under divine laws, revealed laws, 
is a very different thing from one framed by the 
judgment of men. If the latter, then it may be 
inquired into, modified, and improved from time to 
time. But if the form and functions of government 
are divinely prescribed, how can men inquire into it ? 
The Church was not only to continue, but the spe- 
cific means and elements of its continuance and per- 
petuity were provided and placed in the custody of 
the Church. So the government of the Church is as 
divine now as at the first. 

Then what right have men to object to this or that, 
if done by the Church in this historic succession ? 
The Church says so, is a complete answer and es- 
toppel to any such objections. Church authority, in 
this case, is divine authority. So this doctrine of a 
new Church lies at the bottom of all Romish errors. 
Remove that, and then each particular error must 
rest on its own intrinsic merits. Their truth or fal- 
sity can be inquired into in no other way. 

And these same considerations will apply to all 



262 The City of God, 

other forms of High Churchism. Every peculiarity 
of the system rests squarely upon the doctrine of an 
original Church, with a divinely formed government. 
High Church Episcopalians say the original constitu- 
tion provided and enjoined three orders of ministry, 
the twelve apostles being the first bishops, etc. 
Their successors must be regularly appointed ; hence 
the so called, and correctly called, apostolic succes- 
sion, etc. 

Now it is clear the moment you assert the doctrine 
of a new Church and new religion, you virtually give 
up the question. High episcopal authority and apos- 
tolic succession are the most natural, rational, plausi- 
ble, if not the necessary and logical results of the 
erroneously alleged facts of a new Church and new 
rehgion. 

It is seen, therefore, that primary, essential, funda- 
mental Romanism consists in the single, simple idea 
of a new Church and new religion, and that this is 
abundant among Protestants. This, therefore, where- 
soever, or by whomsoever taught, is rational Roman- 
ism. To inculcate the doctrine is to lay a broad 
Romish foundation ; and although practical Popery 
is not by any means always built upon it, logical 
Romanism is never built upon any other foundation. 
There is no other foundation upon which it can be 
built. 

This view of the subject has been practically veri- 
fied in recent debates with CampbeUites, where it 
was alleged that the Christian Church is the identi- 
cal Church formed by the apostles. In opposition 
it was said : " I deny that any Church was formed 
by the apostles, or in that age. Let it be first proved 
that a Church was then formed at all." This position, 



Romanism among Protestants, 263 

strongly taken, was a poser. It was utterly con- 
founding. Even a reply of any sort could not be 
extorted. It had not entered into the polemical cur- 
riculum. It can but produce utter silence in any 
argument of this sort. 

Now, what is to be done ? Will any one say that 
fundamental Romanism is not sometimes unwittingly 
taught by Protestant writers and preachers ? It is 
not always the easiest thing in the world to rectify 
an error. It is hard to change old sayings and old 
modes, but it is not impracticable. It ought to be 
done. Protestants ought, at least, to be themselves 
Protestant. The writer of these strictures confesses 
to as much error in these premises, as he dares to 
attribute to others. In earlier years he did not know 
any better, and thought and wrote as he saw others 
do. He followed older and better men. In riper 
years he saw his error, and dared to correct it. 

It is easy to see that here is a point where the 
great principles of the great Protest were not fully 
followed up in after years. To close up this point is 
a duty we owe both to ourselves and to posterity. 
The Church has a right to the promulgation and 
elaboration of the argument so lightly and feebly set 
forth herein. A man unwilhng to acknowledge and 
rectify an error, when pointed out, is a shallow 
thinker and an unsafe man. 

It is remarkable how readily we drift into both the 
thoughts and expressions of others. Very much of 
what we boastfully call our thinking andi opinions is 
but the almost passive gliding along in the grooves 
formed by others. 

It cannot be expected that these arguments will 
reach that large class of men who know everything, 



^64 The City of Qod, 

and never commit a blunder. But there are others 
less confident and more thoughtful, and with them 
there is more hope. 

The careful, candid reader can hardly fail to see 
that the entire subject of ecclesiastical science, in all 
its forms and phases, rests upon the primary question 
brought forward herein. If Christ formed a new 
Church, prescribing for it some perpetual laws of 
government, then to that extent the government is 
divine, and must not be interfered with ; and if not, 
then the government is in human hands, and men 
are responsible for it. Hardly any question about 
the Church can be answered without first under- 
standing this point. 

Now, would it be out of the way to say that most 
of the questions about the Church, discussed nowa- 
days, proceed upon the assumption precedent, that 
the Church, in its external frame- work, as well as in 
its faith and doctrine, was original, had its historic 
origin in the days of the apostles ? How can such 
teachings lead to valuable results ? One says the 
succession from the original Church must be by ofii- 
cial investiture in Church ofiicers ; while another says 
it must be in the faith of the body of the Church. I 
would inquire, succession from what ? Evidently 
from nothing real, but from something merely mythi- 
cal and imaginary. 

We frequently speak of the primitive Church ; but 
it is not the Church that was primitive in those days, 
but certain aspects of, and facilities for teaching now 
for the first time found in the Church. A sensible, 
historic, or phenomenal view; of the atonement was 
primitive in the days of the apostles ; but the re- 
ligious association of rehgious people was certainly 



Romanism among Protestants. 265 

not then first seen. The knowledge and recognition 
of the crucifixion and other sufferings of Christ were 
of course primitive, because they did not occur be- 
fore ; but surely' the mediation and Immanuelship 
of Christ were not then primitive, for they existed in 
all their fullness, thousands of years before. 

Dr. Schaff, in his History of the Churchy says, 
" The beginning of Church history is properly the 
incarnation of the Son of God, the entrance of the 
new principle of light and life into humanity." 
Again, ''But since the Church as an organic union 
of the disciples of Jesus, came into view first on the 
day of Pentecost, we take this point as the begin- 
ning." And again, " For us, then, Church history 
embraces a period of eighteen centuries." 

Now if these things are true, if this is the proper 
view of the Church, I am not able to see how we 
can get clear of the Romish doctrine of entire so- 
cial, legal, and constitutional separation between the 
Church and religion of the prophets, and that of the 
apostles. See where this doctrine carries us ! It 
not only flatly and palpably ignores all the Bible 
history in the case, but it makes the Church not a 
mere religious brotherhood, but a new divine corpo- 
ration. It is no longer a congeries of religious ele- 
ment brought together by the attracting force of its 
own gravitation, and governed by its own religious 
principle and integrity, but a special corporation 
brought into being by power outside of itself, and 
placed under a prescribed law of perpetual applica- 
tion and force. 

Then it is simply absurd, as well as highly illegal 
and disobedient, to connect the old, abolished Testa- 
ment with proper Christianity. For in that case, 



266 The City of God. 

everything religious, as well as ecclesiastical, was 
abolished and forever set aside. In that case, I can- 
not see that the religion and Church of historic prior- 
ity to the life and times of Jesus, had any sort of con- 
nection with those subsequent. There may be more 
or less of external likeness or similarity between 
them, but they stand related just as Christianity and 
Mohammedanism stand related ; that is, in an atti- 
tude of eternal and unchanging hostility. 

Protestantism cannot consistently stand before 
such doctrine at the bar of enlightened pubhc 
opinion. And as to history, it is unceremoniously 
put out of doors altogether. 



The Jews, 267 



X. 

THE JEWS. 

One of the commonest mistakes of writers as well 
as readers of the New Testament is in the meaning 
put upon the words heading this chapter, which are 
so frequently used in those Scriptures. Who were, 
and who were not Jews ? And then, secondly, does 
the term Jews^ in the New Testament, always mean 
the same thing ? 

We need not spend time with the etymology of the 
word. We know it came from Ji^-dah, and after the 
separation under Relioboam and Jeroboam was applied 
to that branch of the Israelites who held with the 
large tribe of Judah ; and in process of time it was 
applied, or at least we now apply it generally to the 
Church, with but Httle, or at most but very nominal 
reference to genealogical descent. In the time of the 
♦Saviour and previously, there was a well known and 
distinctly marked people, chiefly in Western Asia and 
Africa, called Jews. Their numerical strength is not 
certainly known, but is generally estimated at five to 
seven millions. They were distinguished from other 
people by their religion. We know what this was 
with certainty, for we have it now word for word. 

Some writers seem to regard the Jews or Israelites, 
at the time of the Saviour's life, as whoUy pure blood 
descendants of Abraham. This is a transparent 



268 The City of aod, 

error, which none can fail to see at a glance. There 
was a historic period, and but a short one, when that 
branch of the Church, but certainly not the whole 
Church, was confined to the family of Jacob, the 
grandson of Abraham. Of other religious people, 
such as those connected with Job, Melchizedek, 
Balaam, etc., there is but bare allusion, and we 
know very little about them. Of the early Israelites 
we know but little ; but the Church in that age and 
country, which is historically connected with the 
modern Church, was for a time confined to the ap- 
parent posterity of Abraham, though other large 
branches of the Abrahamic family were not connected 
with it. 

But the Israelites, even in Jacob's family, were by 
no means pure blood descendants from Abraham. 
The twelve sons of Jacob were only one eighth pure. 
And after this, as the twelve patriarchs did not marry 
their sisters, their children were but one sixteenth 
pure as to Abraham. And so the blood necessarily 
dilutes by halves every generation, sav6 when by 
marriage the posterity is bred in-and-in. It is as 
likely as otherwise, so far as I know, though we have 
no information about it, that the grandsons and 
granddaughters of Jacob, or many of them, may have 
intermarried ; that is, married their cousins. If so, 
and this course was maintained strictly, then they 
would continue one sixteenth pure blood descent from 
Abraham. There was no law that they should so 
intermarry, nor do we know of any reason why they 
should, save their civil relation to the Egyptians. 
But it is distinctly intimated that there was consider- 
able mixture with Egyptians before the exodus. Por- 
tions of those who went out with Moses were a 
" mixed multitude." (Ex. xii. 38.) 



The Jews. 269 

This is about all we know of their genealogy, prior 
to the exodus. How much foreign blood they pos- 
sessed by inlet from without, we know not with cer- 
tainty. The purest were one sixteenth pure. From 
this time on, forty years, until their entrance into 
Palestine, they bred in-and-in, remaining, not each 
family, nor yet each tribe, but as a whole, where they 
were at the time of the exodus. 

Now we enter upon a new genealogical era. A 
greater blunder could never be made than the suppo- 
sition that from this time on, the Israelitish people 
maintained a genealogical exclusiveness as to other 
people. Both the law and the practice was the very 
reverse. An ecclesiastical exclusiveness was gener- 
ally maintained. They might continue to marry in 
the Church, both men and women, and yet, genealog- 
ically, as to ancestral blood, its degree of purity might 
dilute one half every generation. Thus at the end of 
fourteen generations, David might have been one six- 
teen thousandth pure blood as to his ancestral pro- 
genitor, Abraham. And at the time of the Babylo- 
nian captivity, fourteen generations more, Jechonias, 
though in a direct male line, might have had blood 
diluted as to Abraham, one part in sixty millions 
pure. And at the time of the Saviour's advent, or 
at any other time, there might have been, and no 
doubt were, thousands and millions of Jews without 
the least particle of blood descended from Abraham ; 
while there were other millions whose proportion of 
pure blood from the patriarchal ancestor was almost 
incalculably infinitesimal. It was philosophically 
possible, though improbable, that any Jew at the 
time of the advent could have had blood as pure 
as one in thirty-two, sixty-four, or a hundred and 
twenty-eight. 



270 The City of aod. 

The historic facts bearing upon this point, though 
greatly overlooked, are easily seen. It is strange 
that the notion ever got into the books that the Jews, 
from Abraham to Jesus, were exclusive as to other 
people, socially, ecclesiastically, and genealogically. 
If by the Jews in that period you mean the Church, 
the only rational meaning the term could have, then 
it is a simple truism that religious people are exclu- 
sive as to irreligious people. This was the only kind 
of exclusiveness we see among the Jews from the 
exodus to Jesus. 

The historic facts are plain. For about fourteen or 
fifteen hundred years, during the period of the resi- 
dence in Palestine, the well known law of the Church 
was as it is now, to take in all who would come in from 
without ; and now when in, they were in, and were in 
all respects on an equal footing with those previously 
in. There was to be no difference between those 
born in and their posterity, and those who came in 
and theirs. (See Ex. xii. 49 ; Num. ix. 16; Lev. 
xix. 33, 34.) After the first generation there could 
be no difference, for they were intermarried ad lib- 
itum, and the posterity was common. This influx 
from without was great and constant. " Many peo- 
ple of the land became Jews." So a Jew was not 
necessarily a descendant of Abraham. This mixing 
of blood in a few descending generations goes much 
more rapidly than one would suppose, until one 
comes to look at it carefully. 

We have seen that a portion of the people who 
came out of Egypt with Moses were a mixed people ; 
mixed by intermarriage with foreigners. And we 
know that the Canaanitish population were by no 
means wholly extirpated, though wholly conquered. 



The Jews, 271 

Many remained alive and became incorporated with 
the Israelites. Many children never knew the differ- 
ence. And then, besides those who from time to 
time, in various ages and various circumstances, joined 
the Jews from proper religious motives, there were 
captives, fugitives, hired servants, etc., who came in in 
great abundance. These incomers are spoken of in 
Scripture generally as " strangers." That is, this 
term is applied to those who came in, but not to their 
posterity. They were soon mixed with the whole 
mass. 

In the time of Solomon we see it incidentally men- 
tioned (2 Chr. ii. 17, 18) that there were at that 
time, of these strangers, able-bodied, working men, 
not counting women, children, or infirm, 153,600 
in or in reach of Jerusalem. There were then, 
probably, of those who were themselves proselytes 
from without, not less than half a million of per- 
sons. Nor is there an intimation that this is at all 
unusual. Then it is probable that at that time 
proselytes were coming in at the rate of about five 
hundred thousand in thirty-three years, or about 
fifteen thousand a year. At other times they came 
in by nations, and in various ways. And although 
many, perhaps most of these accessions were, as to 
themselves personally, of a very dubious or unworthy 
character, yet this was comparatively unimportant, 
when we consider that it could only attach to them- 
selves who came in, and not to their posterity. The 
children soon became mixed with the general and 
undistinguishable mass. 

After the captivity, proselyting among the Israel- 
ites improved greatly, both as to numbers and char- 
acters. The conquests of Alexander, the Egyptian 



272 The City of God. 

and Syrian wars, the struggles under the Maccabean 
princes, and the general expansion of the Roman gov- 
ernment, all tended greatly to bring the Jews into 
notice, to spread them abroad, and give them influence 
in the world. So we see them everywhere in these 
later ages, and their proselytes very numerous. The 
distinction made between proselytes of the gate, and 
of righteousness, is probably more fanciful than other- 
wise. Things did not proceed in that exact, mechan- 
ical way. They were all natural people. There were 
probably among them as many degrees of righteous- 
ness as we find now among similar converts. More- 
over, in a range of many centuries, and in different 
countries, there must have been great variety in all 
these habits and customs. 

And then, too, we must remember, there was not 
only great and constant influx from without, by which 
the genealogical blood of the Church became mixed 
and mingled in a thousand ways, and as many de- 
grees, with the people of the whole East, but also, in 
these long years, there was great and constant out- 
flow. Only a comparatively small portion of the 
blood of Abraham ever was among the Israelites. 
Look at the Ishmaehtes, Edomites, Midianites, all 
Arabia, and many peoples lost to history long since. 

Neither Scripture nor reason attaches any impor- 
tance to mere blood descent from Abraham, beyond 
a single genealogical line, showing the Saviour's lin- 
eage. It is the inheritance of Abraham's faith, not 
his blood, that makes a Jew or Christian. 

Therefore the term Jews, in Scripture, before the 
separation, means the Church. In the Saviour's life- 
time it is highly probable that most of the Church 
were Greeks, who, so far as we know, never had any 



The Jews, 273 

connection lineally with Israelites, mucli less with 
Abraham. The Church then existed in three 
branches or denominations, namely, the Judean, the 
Samaritan, and the Greek or Hellenistic. 

When, therefore, " the Jews " are spoken of before 
the resurrection, the entire Church is referred to, ex- 
cept in places where the sense distinguishes between 
the different denominations. After the resurrection, 
when Jews are spoken of, three different significa- 
tions are to be given to the term. Sometimes these 
different meanings are specified, but generally they 
are not. The sense specifies sufficiently. These 
three senses of the word arise out of the apparent 
fact, that in this period there were three distinct 
classes of Jews, or parties in the Church. To under- 
stand the Scriptures, therefore, in Acts, the Epistles, 
and Revelation, you must know which class is meant, 
or your reading will be to little purpose. To mider- 
stand this better, let a few suggestions be made. 

The only question of importance in the Church at 
this period, on which the Church was divided, was 
this. Is Jesus the Christ? Some holding that He 
was, it necessarily follows that to acknowledge Him 
is to stay in the Church, to deny Him is to go out. 
Here the Church, that is, the Jews, divided. Some 
stayed in, and some went out. Here are now two 
classes of Jews. Both claimed to be the Church, on 
the ground that Jesus was, and that He was not, the 
Christ of the Old Testament. But the whole Church, 
consisting of several millions of persons, and being 
spread over much of the continents of Asia and Af- 
rica, travel being mostly on foot, it was impossible 
this separation could take place at a single time. It 
began soon after the resurrection, in Jerusalem ; but 

18 



274 The City of Qod, 

as to most ot the Church, they could not take sides 
for years, because they could not have the necessary 
information about it. They could not either accept 
or deny the Christship of Jesus, mitil they had 
received the fullest and most reliable information. 

Here, then, for the space of ten, twenty, or most 
likely, in some cases, thirty or forty years, there must 
have been a third party of Jews. They stood as 
before the birth or crucifixion of Jesus. 

It is obvious that in a few years all Jews then 
living must either receive or deny the Christship of 
Jesus finally ; so, thereafter, there could be but two 
classes of Jews. And it is also obvious that one or 
the other of these classes must cease in common' par- 
lance to be called " Jews." All distinct things must 
have distinct names. And so it was in this case. 
Naturally enough, the beheving Jews took the name 
of Christian. And as this branch of Jews, gradually 
of course, took the name of Christian, and so called 
themselves, the other branch would naturally retain 
the old name of Jews. 

The common error, therefore, of regarding these 
rejecting Jews as the proper and sole representatives 
of the Jews as they existed at and before the time 
of Jesus, is apparent. Historically they are no more 
their successors than the Christian party are. The 
succession lineally was, so far as we know, about 
equally divided. But religiously the Christians are 
the sole and exclusive successors. This must be so 
with unmistakable certainty, if Jesus was and is the 
Christ. 

So that while modern Jews, that is, the successors 
of the rejecting Jews, are called Jews, and exclu- 
sively so called, they are by no means entitled to 



The Jews. . 375 

the name. They are not really Jews, but only 
falsely pretend to be. This we see clearly stated in 
Rev. ii. 9 and iii. 9. They blasphemously say they 
are Jews and are not, but are of the church of Satan. 
They say they are Jews and are not, but do lie. 
They abandoned the Church of Scripture, setting up 
a new and false Church. 

It is then a great and dangerous error, however 
popular it may be, to class modern Jews with the 
people called Jews at and before the time of Jesus, 
and to regard the former as both the religious and 
ecclesiastical successors of the latter. Most assur- 
edly they are neither. To suppose that they are is 
to suppose that the religion called Christianity is a 
new and false religion, and the Church called Chris- 
tian, a new and false Church. 

Modern Jews are the lineal descendants of about 
one half, probably, of the Jews in the Saviour's time, 
but as to both religion and Church, they are wholly 
and entirely apostates. This does not admit of ques- 
tion, for it is a conclusion toth necessary and palpa- 
ble. 



276 The City of God, 



XI. 

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 

To debate a question is to acknowledge that it is 
debatable. And this means that certain premises 
are mutually agreed upon ; and furthermore, that 
the conclusion you deny might be so. If two men 
were to debate whether Washington was the first or 
the second president of the United States, it would 
be a virtual acknowledgment that the United States 
had presidents, and also that Washington was presi- 
dent at either the first or second term. And after 
joining that issue, it would be incompetent to deny 
that the United States ever had a president. You 
have acknowledged that the United States had pres- 
idents, and that the first one might have been Wash- 
ington. 

So, to debate what kind of government Julius 
Caesar set up in the United States would be an 
acknowledgment, on both sides, that Julius Caesar 
did set up some kind of government in the United 
States. 

Then if it were alleged that the government set 
up by Caesar in the United States, in 1776, was re- 
publican, with many peculiar details, and not mo- 
narchical, and this is the issue presented, there would 
be two ways in which the allegation might be met. 
One would be to resort to the history of the country 



The Apostolic Succession. 277 

to show that the government was different from that 
set up in the allegation. The other would be to 
deny at the threshold that the Roman emperor was 
ever in the United States at all, or ever set up any 
government there. If it could not be shown that 
Caesar set up some kind of government there, then 
all possible questions, and proof thereof, as to the 
kind of government, are at once avoided. No man 
would think of meeting such an issue in any other 
way than by cutting off all argument at once by 
denying that Caesar set up any government there at 
aU. 

This is exactly the character of the debate — thou- 
sands of volumes, and millions of sermons — about 
the kind of government that Jesus Christ set up in 
Jerusalem for the Church. I asked a little school- 
boy at table, what kind of government Marc An- 
tony set up in Mexico. He replied that Marc 
Antony did not set up any government in Mexico ; 
that he was never in Mexico. I thought to myself 
it was strange some of our theologians did not make 
a reply as true, as sensible, and as conclusive, to the 
many arguments and historic testimony about the 
kind of Church government set up by Jesus Christ. 

The follo^ving facts are true, and so notorious they 
will not be questioned : First, thousands of volumes 
and tens of thousands of lesser publications have 
been made to prove, pro and con, the kind of Church 
government under which Jesus Christ set up and 
organized the Church at the first in Jerusalem. 
High Church Episcopalians have published many of 
these thousands to prove -that the new Church gov- 
ernment so set up had three orders in its ministry, 
with prelatical power in the first order, called bish- 



278 The City of God. 

ops. This was one of its main features. Campbell- 
ites, or " Christians," and other Baptists, have pub- 
lished their thousands to prove that the new Church 
government so set up by Jesus Christ was on the 
republican order. This was a fundamental provision 
in the new Church. Methodists have published as 
many to prove that the Church so organized by the 
Saviour and his apostles had two orders in the min- 
istry only, alleging that in the new Church law, " a 
presbyter was the same as a bishop." Presbyterians 
of different classes have published their full share 
of these thousands, to prove that the new Church so 
set up by Jesus Christ provided in its government 
for parity in the ministry. Roman Catholics, since 
the first distinct formation of their Church, in the 
eighth century, have held that the new Church of 
Jesus Christ so set up as above was on the high 
monarchical principle. Various other denominations 
have taken various other views about the Church 
government so set up at the first by Jesus Christ, 
and with the implied understanding, on all hands, 
that this new Christian Church government was to 
be perpetual for the Church in all future time. 

Second, Jesus Christ, by Himself or his apostles, 
did not set up, organize, or establish anew any 
Church, or the government of any Church, directly 
or indirectly, in Jerusalem or elsewhere. He merely 
continued, or suffered to continue, the Church of 
his fathers as it was of old, and is now. He never 
intimated, so far as we know, nor did any one else 
in that age intimate, that the old and then existing 
Church even needed modification or change. 

Now are these two propositions strictly true in 
every particular ? Will any man question either, or 



The Apostolic Succession, 279 

any part of either ? Then they furnish matter for 
sober reflection. Perhaps no question in ecclesias- 
tical science has been more voluminously debated 
than the " Apostolic Succession " so called. What 
is that question ? It is how a thing was done, which 
confessedly was never done at all ! It is the same 
kind of a question precisely, as to inquire what kind 
of a government Julius Caesar formed in the United 
States. Everybody knows he formed none. 

The question called " Apostolic Succession " is not 
a debatable question. Then there has been no such 
debate. There has been a wrangle about myths and 
fables, things which never had an existence. I do 
not see that the man who denies the doctrine is any 
nearer the truth than he who affirms it. Such an 
argument at all, irrespective of any sides, rests wholly 
upon a falsehood. The question concedes and sup- 
poses that Jesus Christ organized a new Church gov- 
ernment, and the affirmant says that in doing so, 
in arranging the new Church law, it was provided 
that the ministerial authority, which at first resided 
solely in the twelve apostles, must be handed down 
from them tactuaUy by personal transmission. And 
, the objector to this doctrine of personal transmis- 
sion simply denies that the first constitution of the 
Church contained such provision, alleging that it 
provided for the enfranchisement by mere Church 
authority. So the one is evidently as much in error 
as the other. 

The arguments on this subject, many of them, 
affirm, 1st, that Episcopacy was and was not of divine 
appointment ; that is, was and was not so provided 
in the new Church law. 2d. Episcopacy is neces- 
sary to the perfection of Church government, but not 



280 The City of God, 

its being. 3d. It is absolutely necessary. 4tli. 
Bishops are by divine right superior to and distinct 
from elders. They have the sole right to ordain 
ministers, and govern the Church. 5th. Bishops of 
this order are the sole official successors 'of the apos- 
tles. 6th. Bishops and presbyters are by divine 
right the same order in the ministry. 7th. All min- 
isters are the same order. This is according to the 
primitive Church. To prove what a Church must 
be now, you have only to ascertain what it was in 
that respect when it was primitive ; i. e., when it 
was fresh and new from apostolic legislation. 

Now I ask, what are all these arguments about ? 
Evidently nothing. They begin and end in myth, 
romance, and error. It is precisely as if we argue 
the question. What kind of a government did Julius 
Caesar set up in America in the eighteenth century ? 

When therefore it is said there must be a cham 
of tactual ordinations from the apostles down, in 
order to continue the proper existence of the Church 
set up by Jesus Christ, the only reply that can be 
made, consistently with historic truth, is that Jesus 
Christ set up no Church of any kind. It cannot be 
argued what kind of Church He made, until it first 
be shown that He made a Church of some kind. 



Who are Converted Jews? 281 



XII. 
WHO ARE CONVERTED JEWS? 

There are two senses in which this expression may 
be understood, and the meanings are very different. 
Before the apostacy and secession of the unbeheving 
Jews, after the death of Jesus, the religion of all 
Jews was nominally the same. Save some occasional 
lapses into idolatry in their earlier history, there 
never was any difl&culty among them about their 
creed. It was nominally the same. Nevertheless 
in that period, as in all other periods of the Church, 
you would no doubt find unconverted persons in 
the Church. Indeed, more strictly, then as now 
and always, all conversion, regeneration, is in the 
Church, virtually at least. So such persons being 
Jews, and being converted, might be called converted 
Jews. 

But that is not the sense in which the expression 
is generally used. Commonly, it means a person 
converted from Judaism to Christianity. Of course 
such conversions can be predicated only of the apos- 
tate Jews, after the secession. Of such we are in- 
formed in the New Testament of but one instance, 
though quite likely there were many. 

Saul of Tarsus left the Church, and went with the 
apostates, and after a few years he was converted 
from his apostacy, from tliis new form of Judaism, 



282 The City of God. 

to Christianity. He was in the most proper sense 
a converted Jew. It was not merely the conversion 
of a Jewish person, but he was converted as a Jew. 
It was like the conversion of a Jew now. 

But the great mass of Jews who acknowledged 
the Christship of Jesus in that age could not be 
called converted Jews. They never had any relig- 
ion but Christianity. They never denied Christ, 
either in the person of Jesus or otherwise. It mat- 
ters not when they acknowledged Jesus as Christ, 
whether on the day of the resurrection, or ten or 
twenty years after, if they received Jesus at the 
first opportunity without denying Him. They were 
not apostates, and so, not converted Jews. Accept- 
ing Jesus as their Christ was only a firm maintain- 
ance intact and inviolate of their former religious 
creed. They retained and maintained the religion 
of their fathers, receiving Jesus when presented 
They could not receive Him before. 



Modern or Post-Messianic Jews, 283 



XIII. 
MODERN OR POST-MESSIANIC JEWS. 

Tedb status of present Jews, those since the time of 
Jesus, and their relation to the true Church, should be 
noticed in this connection. 

We have seen that before the death of Jesus, the 
people afterward called Christians and those called 
Jews were together in one religious brotherhood ; and 
when the question arose about Jesus, whether He was 
or was not the Christ of the Old Testament, some 
took one side and some the other. This separation 
began soon after the death of Jesus, and we may sup- 
pose that in thirty or forty years it became complete. 
The scattered condition of the Church, the civil state 
of the country, and other circumstances, rendered it 
impracticable that it should become complete sooner. 

We see too that this question about the Christship 
was, in its consequences, absolutely vital both to re- 
ligion and to the Church. It could but be well under- 
stood on all hands, that if Jesus was Christ, then to 
deny Him was to deny Christ, and apostatize from 
the common faith. And if He was not the Christ 
of prophecy, in that case to accept and claim Him 
as such was to deny the faith, and apostatize. They 
separated. Both parties were large, but at this day 
it is impossible to determine which was the larger, and 
which the smaller of the two. The question on which 



284 The City of God. 

they separated being in its nature vital to religion, it 
threw the parties wide asunder. Their hostility was 
naturally great. It could not be otherwise. Assum- 
ing that Jesus was Christ, then it follows that those 
so holding, afterwards called Christians, held the old 
faith firm, and the denying party apostatized. Each 
party claimed to be right, claimed to be the true 
Church, the mere regular continuance of the old 
Church. The Jews, as the denying party came to 
be exclusively called, after the other party came to be 
well known by the name of Christians, claimed the 
regular ecclesiastical legitimacy, on the ground that- 
Jesus was an impostor, while the Christians claimed 
it on the sole ground that He was the very Christ. 
Everything hinged upon this simple fact. There was 
no difference between them about doctrines, apart 
from this. 

Irreligious, outside people then, and those in Chris- 
tendom now, stood on very different ground. Then 
outsiders were mostly heathen people, idolaters, be- 
lieved in no Scripture, denied all revelation. They 
looked down 'from their wisdom on both parties, and 
regarded this separation as a party quarrel among 
fanatics about one . Jesus, who being dead, it was af- 
firmed that He was aUve. The denying Jews, keep- 
ing up those outside forms of worship most promi- 
nently seen, and also retaining the old name, would 
be naturally regarded the regular party, and the 
Christians as a new sect or secession. And this they 
would be still the more likely to do, as the Christians 
held the strange doctrine that a man once dead was 
aUve. And so we hear the heathen writers of that 
day speak of them as a new sect. On the ques- 
tion as to which party seceded, the Roman officials 



Modern or Post-Messianic Jews. 285 

and 'the denying Jews very naturally took the same 
ground. 

And then the deifying and worshipping a convicted 
criminal, one who had been judicially executed, was 
in their eyes foolishness indeed. So the government 
officials and leading men among the heathen, whose 
position and circumstances caused them to know, or 
care, or think much about Jew or Hebrew people, 
would very naturally fall in with the rejecting Jews, 
without taking any interest at all in the rehgion of 
either of the two parties. 

So the government hunted, persecuted, and pun- 
ished the Christians, because they were, as they re- 
garded them, a new sect, and not because they cared 
a fig about the doctrines of either party. The Ro- 
mans had stipulated to protect the Jews in their wor- 
ship, innocent and foohsh as they regarded it ; and 
here was in their estimation an opposing religious 
party, and a disturber of the rehgious quiet. What 
many theologians call the calling of the Gentiles was 
the mere putting forth of more of the proper aggres- 
sive force and missionary spirit of the common relig- 
ion of Scripture. 

Thus matters drifted for the space of about forty 
years, with more or less persecution against the Chris- 
tians, according to the taste, ambition, personal 
wickedness, etc., of the conflicting and changing rulers 
of Rome, until the great* Jewish revolt, which ended 
in the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. This Ro- 
man war had little to do with Church or religious 
matterSjSO far as history informs us. It was a revolt, 
not of the Jews, but chiefly at least of the anti-Chris- 
tian Jews of Lower Judea. What other portions of 
that class of Jews, if any, joined them, we are not 



286 The City of aod. 

informed. The insurgents were routed, cut up, and 
dispersed. And after some years we find the whole 
remainder of rejecting Jews holding on in religious 
ceremony to ante-messianic forms and modes of wor- 
ship, which ceremonies, of themselves, declared against 
Jesus as Christ. 

Our Palestinian history of those times is very 
meagre and unsatisfactory, owing, as we may sup- 
pose, to the great destruction of hterature, centuries 
afterward, in the Mohammedan wars. The few 
scraps left us, hardly amounting to anything like con- 
secutive history, show us that the breach between 
the Christian and repudiating Jews became deeper 
and deeper. 

In the first three centuries, the rejecting Jews con- 
tinued to be regarded by the Roman government as 
the true Israelites, and the Christian party as an 
illegitimate offshoot. Constantine became emperor 
A. D. 306. Unlike his predecessors, who were mostly 
mere despotic rulers, he was a man of the people. 
Of his semi-fabulous conversion to Christianity, much 
more has been written than is known. His politic* 
were certainly Christian. Thus much we know, that 
he made Christianity largely and strikingly popular, 
and gave it large magnificence and patronage. Now 
the popular tide turned against the Jews, and they, 
in turn, became the illegitimate offshoot. 

From that time to the present, the Jews have been 
generally regarded a despised, disfranchised, and 
downtrodden people. Their religion caused them 
to prefer exclusiveness, and their neighbors com- 
pelled it. 

One remarkable circumstance in their civil history 
has generally been lost sight of. For more than six- 



Modern or Post-Messianie Jews. 287 

teen hundred years, up to one hundred or one hun- 
dred and fifty years ago, they have not been per- 
mitted to live in the world hke other people. Their 
repudiation of Christ, and consequently of all revealed 
religion, has been so abhorrent to Christians, and 
their religion so unable to commend itself to other 
people, that they have found toleration nowhere. 
So wherever they have gone, they have been compelled 
by the civil authority to occupy exclusive, assigned 
districts, and scarcely to change and reside here and 
there among other people, as they might choose. It 
is but lately, mostly within the last hundred years 
or so, that they have attempted to mix and associate 
with other people. Either choice or compulsion pre- 
vented it. The late liberal principles among the 
nations of Europe and America have been showing 
themselves only in the last one or two hundred years. 
Considerable changes in this respect have been wit- 
nessed in the present century. But in some parts of 
the world, these civil hamperings are felt by the Jews 
even at the present. 

What effect such conditions of life would have upon 
a people in so long a period, we are poorly prepared 
to judge, for we have no precedent or parallel case in 
human history. All nations and peoples are more or 
less clannish and exclusive, and in proportion as this 
characteristic is more or less strict, and of long con- 
tinuance, it produces a nationality of physical ap- 
pearances as well as of habitude of life. This is 
plainly seen everywhere. 

Now the question is, will not this circumstance ac- 
count for the physical peculiarities which we see 
among the Jews of the present day ? It is worse 
than useless to attempt to trace these peculiarities be- 



288 The City of aod. 

yond the apostolic age, as if the ante-messianic Jews 
were one and the same people, as to race or nation. 
AVe know that at the time of Jesus, many of the- 
Jews, perhaps most of them, were Grecians and others, 
who never had any sort of connection with Israelites, 
except in their religion. Why does it follow, either 
from the nature of the Church, or from anything else, 
or where is the history to show, to indicate, or to sup- 
pose that the members of the Church at that day, 
any more than at this, were all of one nation, one 
kindred, or one people, either civilly or genealogically 
considered ? Fancy and fable do not make good his- 
tory, though repeated a thousand times. All the his- 
tory we have proves the contrary. 

Some fanciful writers affect to trace the. physiog- 
nomy of Abraham in the Jewish features of the pres 
ent day. Why not trace it in those of the Arabians, 
the Moabites, if they can be found, or in the Chris 
tians of the present day ? 

The Jews before the separation, in the apostolic 
period, were less clannish and exclusive than other 
peoples of those ages, so far as we are informed. Like 
the Church of this and all other ages, the policy was 
to bring in from without anybody and everybody who 
would worship God aright. This arises from the 
very nature of the Church and its religion. And we 
know abundantly that the Church, for more than a 
thousand years before the incarnation, did, as it does 
now, extend itself outward everywhere, that is, bring 
in from without greatly, so as thereby to swell its 
numbers more or less in different ages. 

It is therefore little short of folly to attempt to 
trace the present Jews, as a nation or separate peo- 
ple, back beyond the separation. They are traceable 



Modern or Post-Messianic Jews. 289 

since that period only on account of their strange 
religion, and their strange relation to surrounding 
nations. The people known as Jews since the sep- 
aration are but an anomalous fragment of the Jews, 
that is, of the Church before that event. 

It is plainly perceivable that in the last twenty or 
fifty years, the Jewish physiognomy and external 
peculiarity is beginning to dilute and disappear. It 
is not always now, more especially in England and 
America, that a Jew can be distinguished ; and many 
persons are half, quarter, or one eighth or a sixteenth 
Jewish, as to one of the ancestral lines a few genera- 
tions back. And the operation of the same causes, 
namely, the prevalence of liberal principles by which 
Jews may live and intermarry freely, Hke other peo- 
ple, will in time, and indeed in no great time, ren- 
der it impossible to distinguish a Jew ; and thus, by 
the natural but gradual operation of the same cause, 
in no great time hence, there will be no such people 
as Jews in the world, in any national, genealogical, or 
physiological sense, whatever course the present Jew- 
ish religion may take. 

Then what comes of all those speculations about 
the restoration of the Jews ? Who are to be re- 
stored ? and to what are they to be restored ? The 
restoration is predicated of promises in the Old Tes- 
tament, away in early Hebrew history, and in refer- 
ence to the seed of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. 
Then how can it have any more reference to this 
fragment of Jews now found in the apostacy, than to 
those who accepted the Christship in Jesus, or those 
who branched off from the Church in any way ? 

Still, the posterity of Jacob have performed a 
most remarkable, nay a wonderful part in the history 
. 19 



290 The City of aod. 

of the world. They were made wonderfully instru- 
mental in putting down idolatry, and estabhshing the 
true worship of the true God among men. For 
a time they were distinguishable from other people in 
a genealogical sense, and then only in a religious 
sense. Modern or post-messianic Jews, a fragmentary 
offshoot of a fragment of the old ancestral Jews, have 
had a wonderful history ; but in the end have per- 
haps furnished more material for semi-romance than 
for historic truth. 



Modes of Teaching in Different Ages, 291 



XIV. 
MODES OF TEACHING IN DIFFERENT AGES. 

It has been insisted that the religion of the Old 
Testament was the religion of the New; that the 
one is no more spiritual, or suited to mankind in 
general, than the other ; that the Bible knows no 
religion but faith in Christ, and corresponding obe- 
dience ; that there is nothing new in the New Testa- 
ment, as to the Old, except modes of teaching. 
Nevertheless, historic facts are always in their nature 
new. 

Religious principles and doctrines are inculcated 
chiefly in two ways : by verbal or didactic lessons, 
and the performance of ceremonies. These are done, 
when properly done, and best to purpose, not always 
in the same way ; but in different ages, in different 
countries, and among different peoples, in different 
ways. 

The difference, then, between the old and the new 
dispensations, as these two periods are sometimes 
called, is not in religion, but merely in the modes of 
teaching it. 

The necessity of different modes of teaching arises 
out of the nature of things, particularly religious 
things, and the mental constitution. Before the in- 
carnation of Christ was seen, it was impossible to 
teach the doctrine of faith in Christ, in the mode, 



292 The City of aod. 

and with the instruments used since. This impossi- 
bility is peculiar to religion only in so far as religion 
comprehends moral and spiritual things. I beg just 
here to remind the reader of a chapter in Ecce Ec- 
clesia^ on the " Origination of Ideas." 

Before the incarnation, the Church could know 
nothing of the vicarious atonement, except as an ab- 
stract doctrine. Now it is known as a practical, sensi- 
ble fact, as well as a doctrine. Knowledge on all moral 
or immaterial subjects must necessarily proceed in this 
way. The improvement in language and advance of 
human society must proceed together. They are 
mutually dependent. By long processes and familiar 
usage, we have brought into our employ a number 
of words pretty well fitted to convey a number of 
ideas respecting this general doctrine, which our dis- 
tant, ancestors did not, and could not possibly have. 
So they must needs use other instruments. But 
when the lessons or doctrines to be taught become 
familiarly associated with the words describing them, 
then the physical means, formerly useful, or even nec- 
essary, become a hindrance. 

It is the great mistake of those who make it, to 
suppose that the Mosaic Church machinery was al- 
ways the same. On the contrary, it was almost al- 
ways changing. Like the upward progress of thought 
and action elsewhere, it was constantly evolving, not 
new principles, but new modes of displaying and in- 
culcating old ones. So we once saw the tabernacle, 
greatly useful and much used in its time ; but tifter 
the location of the tribes in Palestine, we see httle or 
nothing of it. It was not now useful. Thereafter 
T^e see more of the verbal teachings of the prophets. 
So, after the captivity, we see congregational worship 



Modes of Teaching in Different Ages. 293 

much in use. Perhaps there was not much, if any, 
of it before. The state of things now called for it. 
And in the later prophets, we see an evident depart- 
ure from rehance on external forms, and a more 
open application of the ideas connected therewith. 
If the condition of mankind had been such at the 
first, that man could properly use and appreciate the 
knowledge which was furnished in the historic scenes 
of the incarnation and visible work of Christ, then 
there would have been no postponement of the incar- 
nation. But such was not the case. Man has al- 
ways been natural. And so it was only in the fulhiess 
of time, the time wanted by regular and natural pro- 
cesses, that Christ assumed manhood, and appeared 
in the humanity of Jesus. 

These developments do by no means create new 
doctrines, or new principles of religion to be taught, 
but only new and greater facihties for teaching the 
old ones. 

Some of the early Mosaic laws seem to us to be al- 
most devoid of religious principle of any kind. Per- 
haps in themselves considered they are ; but there is 
a principle in religion, often very much overlooked ; 
the greatest and most fundamental of all, the foun- 
dation and substance of all, that could not fail of in- 
culcation by any of these direct precepts understood 
to be divine, no matter to what they might relate 
immediately. That is, obedience. Obedience, full, 
complete, absolute, implicit obedience to divine com- 
mand, is religion of the highest type, no matter to 
what the particular command may relate. Perhaps 
much of the early Hebrew ritual was of this charac 
ter ; that is, intrinsically of little or no value, but 
highly important to strengthen and habituate a spirit 



29-4 The City of God, 

of obedience. A thing commanded to be done may 
be', in itself, unimportant, and yet the obedience put 
forth in doing it may be vitally important. So, very 
much of the early precepts given to the Church might 
be very safely laid aside, after they had answered 
their end. 

But all the principal or important things which 
went into disuse in the age of Jesus were, so far as 
we know, not even of this character. They were not 
laid aside by mere command, or as matter of pru- 
dence and expediency. They ceased by the simplest 
operation of common sense, from absolute necessity, 
and the nature of things. They pertained strictly 
and naturally to the ante-messianic period. To con- 
tinue them, or any of them, would be absurd and 
contradictory. It would be to declare that Jesus was 
not Christ ; that the appearance was yet to be looked 
for. 

To have clear ideas, therefore, about either rehgion 
or the Church, we must distinguish between modes 
of teaching and the things taught. As to the intro- 
duction of spiritual religion into the world at the 
period of Jesus, all before that time being legal, 
physical, external religion ; it must be treated in no 
other way than to denounce it as absurd and ridicu- 
lous ! It is out of all reason, and out of aU question. 
Stated a thousand times, it is dishonoring to God, 
derogatory to religion, and most signally untrue. 

It is wonderful how a man can read in the Psalms, 
and many other parts of the Old Testament, of the 
highest and holiest Christian experience, descriptions 
of the sublimest and most fervid communion with 
God, and exhortations to holiness the purest and 
loftiest ever uttered in human language, — and then 



3Ijdiis of Tfsaahing in Different Ages, 295 

write that spiritual religion was not known, that 
repentance was not taught, that faith, in Christ had 
no existence among men before the incarnation ! 
Shall such stumbling blocks remain in the Church ? 
O Lord, how long ! 



296 The City of God. 



XV. 

THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST. 

A NUMBER of writers make frequent mention of 
the Mystical Body of Christ, without, so far as I re- 
member to have seen, any explanation of the mean- 
ing of the curious phrase. How it ever got into re- 
ligious literature, others may know better than I do. 
It seems to be sometimes used as another name for 
the Church. But what there is mysterious about 
the Church, I have not been able to see. 

Dr. Kitto says (Cyclopcedia^ art. " Mystery "), 
'<' A most unscri'ptural and dangerous sense is but too 
often put upon thl^ word, as if it meant something 
absolutely unintelHgible and incomprehensible ; 
whereas in every instance in which it occurs in the 
Septuagint or New Testament, it is appHed to some- 
thing revealed^ declared, explained, spoken, or which 
may be known or understood." 

This is both sensible and important. The author 
then proceeds to quote and explain the several pas- 
sages where the word occurs in Scripture. It seems 
to me there is far less mystery about the Church, 
than almost anything else in religion. 

I suppose we know very Httle, if anything, about 
final causes m any of the departments of knowledge. 
And in the very nature of religious things, standing 
as they necessarily do, upon the very borders of finite 



The Mystical Body of Christ. 297- 

things, and shading, if it were possible, into the re- 
gions of the infinite, it can but be that our knowl- 
edge is restricted by our constitutional inability to go 
farther. And when we know so little about many 
famihar things, we should not be surprised at our 
lack of knowledge of religious things. Rejigious 
teaching carries us as near to the incomprehensible 
as it is possible. It teaches of God, but cannot carry 
the mind to God. It teaches of eternity, but cannot 
conduct the mind to eternity. And so of heaven, of 
hell, and other things pertaining to spiritual and in- 
finite things. 

In all these matters, revelation teaches as far as 
man can receive the teaching. Things beyond that 
might be called mysterious. But what are generally 
called mysteries in Scripture are revealed things, 
which otherwise we would not be able to know. 

But who does not comprehend the idea of the 
external association of Christian people ? There 
is nothing more mysterious about that, than about 
family association. Mystery, indeed ! I know of 
not many things more simple or more easily under- 
stood. 

And yet the Church is the mystical body of 
Christ ; it is mysteriously connected with the Sav- 
iour In some hidden, obscure way, with some secret, 
allegorical meaning, growing, we may suppose, out of 
the manner of its formation, taken in connection with 
the destruction, at the same time, of the former 
Church. 

Thus it is that semi-Romanism is propagated 
among us in an insidious, matter-of-course kind of 
way. Thus it is that almost if not quite all the mis- 
chievous errors in the Church, about the Church, 



298 The City of God, 

grow out of this popular error of a new Church, of 
a new dispensation. The dispensation is new in 
the sense that, according to a distinguished author, 
" All before was earthly, or animal, or devilish, or 
all three together ; but now, all is holy, spiritual, and 
divine." And according to another, " The planting 
of Christianity was the total abohtion of all the re- 
ligion that preceded it." A third, " The Christian 
religion is entirely new, both with regard to the ob- 
ject and the doctrines, not only infinitely superior to, 
but totally unlike everything which had ever before 
entered into the mind of man." A fourth says that 
"All the religion of the Jews before the apostles 
was, throughout, a system of folly and delusion." 
A fifth, that " The kingdom of God, which is the 
Church of God, had no existence, no pretense to 
existence, before the apostles erected it by Christ's 
command." And a sixth, a tenth, and a hundredth, 
in hke manner. 

Now when the tall teachers of rehgious teachers 
teach thus, what are we humble assistants to do ? 
What are we expected to teach ? We must break 
through such shackles and teach the truth. 

If we set it down as true that no new Church was 
formed, and no new religion was introduced in the 
time of the apostles, then we must maintain 'that 
ground, and understand all Scripture that way. All 
Scripture must conform to everything that is true. 
Truth must not yield to accommodate anybody, or 
for fear of anybody. 



The Hundred and Twenty Disciples. 299 



XVI. 
THE HUNDRED AND TWENTY DISCIPLES. 

Acts i. • 15 reads on this wise : " And in those 
days Peter stood up in the midsf of the disciples, and 
said (the number of the names together were about 
an hundred and twenty), Men and brethren," etc. 
He then goes on, as the history informs us, to pro- 
pose another apostle in the place of Judas. 

A good deal has been said about this hundred and 
twenty disciples, so alluded to on that occasion. 

Olshausen says : " The whole body of the little 
Church at Jerusalem amounted, at that time, only to 
one hundred and twenty souls." How he gets his 
information is a very serious question. 

Burkitt calls them the " primo-primitive Church, 
consisting of a hundred and twenty persons." 
Neither does he give us the least intimation as to 
where he gets his information. 

Seotfs Commentary says, " The whole number of 
disciples collected together at this time was about a 
hundred and twenty." That is a very safe remark. 
It is what Luke had just stated, that the nuinber of 
disciples at that time and that place was about a 
hundred and twenty. 

Benson paraphrases thus : " That is, who were to- 
gether in the upper room, were a hundred and 
twenty." That is very sensible, and is plainly stated 
without any conjecture or guess-work. 



300 The City of God, 

Dr. Clarke is quite as satisfactory. He regards 
the one hundred and twenty as the number of per- 
sons then and there present in that room ; and re- 
marks, " It is remarkable, that this was the number 
which the Jews required to form a Council in any 
city." 

To the conjecture of Burkitt and of Olshausen, it 
might be replied, first, that the words used by Luke 
as to the number present on the occasion referred to, 
are merely incidental and parenthetic, forming no 
part of the staple of* the thing he is relating. 

Secondly, there is not the shghtest intimation any- 
where in any history, that this number of persons 
has anything whatever to do with the number of 
Church-members at that time. The supposition, as 
we will see, is a mere conjecture, and a very wild 
one. Third, it could not be intended to number the 
Church, for Paul, in First Corinthians, in a remark 
equally irrelevant to the numerical strength of the 
Church, says that some time before that, before the 
ascension, above five hundred brethren saw the Sav- 
iour at one time after his crucifixion. And Burkitt, 
who, as above, says this one hundred and twenty 
constituted the entire Church, says also that this five 
hundred were all members of the Church, of the 
highest veracity and piety. Both things cannot be 
true, for they plainly contradict each other. 

But in the fourth place, before any person can 
regard this one hundred and twenty as making up 
the entire Church of God upon earth, he must an- 
swer the question, What became of the Church 
that undeniably existed a few weeks before, amount- 
ing to millions ? To question that, a few weeks be- 
fore this, a Church, a divinely recognized Churcli, 



The Hundred and Twenty Disciples, 301 

call it by what name you will, existed, a little of it 
in Palestine, and the rest in other countries, amount- 
ing to several millions, would be to question a fact 
that never was questioned, we may suppose. This 
Church, the Church of God, with our Bible — all 
of it that then existed — for their Bible, our Christ 
for their. Christ, and our God for their God, had, it is 
said, over four hundred of its congregations in the 
city of Jerusalem alone, and thousands more in other 
parts of the world. Jesus himself was a member of 
it. It was physically impossible that any large por- 
tion of them could have even heard of those then 
recent, wonderful events at Jerusalem. Not one 
tenth, probably, could have heard of his crucifixion 
and resurrection, and so, could not have denied 
Him. They could not have questioned his resurrec- 
tion, either as a fact or as evidence of his Christship. 
Those who denied the Saviour did it after this. At 
that time, no serious objection is intimated against 
any portion of the Church, 'except a few officials 
and others in Jerusalem, who aided and abetted in 
the trial and crucifixion. These could not have 
amounted to over a few hundred, at most. Now, 
what became of this entire Church, with its millions 
of members, and tens of thousands of divinely called 
and divinely recognized ministers ? Does any one 
say — as no one ever did say, that I know of — that* 
they were all excommunicated, wholesale, without 
impeachment, without their knowledge, and when 
they could^not have heard of it for many years after- 
ward ? As there is not the least historic intimation 
of such a proceeding, the supposition is absurd. Or 
did divine wisdom set up two rival churches to 
waste and devour each other? The one supposition 
is about as ridiculous as the other. 



302 The City of Qod, 

Dr. Schaff, in his romantic, and it might be pru- 
dently added, rather fabulous history of tHe Church's 
origin, tells us that the Church was not organized by 
Jesus in person, nor by the apostles, but by this 
company of followers and friends of the Saviour, 
consisting of a hundred iind twenty, or thereabouts, 
and including the apostles, on the day of Pentecost. 
And although he is very minute in his details about 
everything that happened, either with or without 
historic warrant, often drawing very largely on his 
imagination, he makes not the slightest allusion to 
the formation of a Church, or anything of the kind. 
But without a word or hint of history, or pretense of 
history, he tells us that then and there one hundred 
and twenty persons formed and founded a new di- 
vine Church for mankind ! This, for a scholar and 
a theologian, is certainly extraordinary. 

Those speculations, many and varied as they are, 
about this hundred and twenty, have all grown out 
of a very natural, but very incidental remark of the 
writer of Acts, that when it was proposed to select a 
man for apostle in the place of Judas, there were not 
many persons present, only about a hundred and 
twenty. 

Whether this number present, one hundred and 
twenty, had any reference to a Church council, an 
ecclesiastical body with which they must be pre- 
sumed to be familiar, we are not informed. This is 
the opinion of Dr. Clarke and other leading com- 
mentators. But it would seem strange that the for- 
mation of a new and antagonistic Church, one that 
was to destroy the Jewish Church then existing, 
should be set up and made to work by a Jewish 
Church council ! 



The Hundred and Twenty Disciples, 303 

But from the brief historic notes we have of this 
selection of Matthias, it does not appear that any- 
body participated in it but the apostles themselves. 

Were it not for the old fable that the Christian 
Church that now'^s had its absolute, organic begin- 
ning at, or just about this time, one would no more 
think of finding the formation of a Church in this 
assembly of a hundred and twenty, than in any other 
historic matter alluded to in the New Testament. 

Some find the beginning of the Church when Je- 
sus began to preach; some here and there in the 
course of his preaching, and some on the last day of 
his ministry. . Others again find it to have been or- 
ganiaed by the apostles, some here and some there, 
after the death of Jesus. If anything could be found 
anywhere in the New Testament on the subject, or 
making any 'allusion even to such a thing, it would 
reheve the subject of much of its most serious diffi- 
culty. As it is, it is not only wholly conjecture, but 
looked at soberly, as elsewhere intimated, the thing 
itself is not only historically untrue, but philosophi- 
cally impossible. 



804 The City of God, 



XVII. 
THE TRIAL AND EXECUTION OF JESUS. 

It is appropriate that a few observations be made 
here on this subject. It is the foundation of all true 
religion, and might be justly regarded the corner- 
stone of the Church. The accounts we have of this 
transaction are historically exceedingly meagre' and 
unsatisfactory. Indeed, we have nothing that can be 
called a history, or even a comprehensive outline of 
the transactions. We have but a few isolated, dis- 
integrated facts. It is a mistake with those of us 
who suppose that the four Evangelists, or any one of 
them, undertook to write a history of anything. The 
object of writing the New Testament seems to be,, 
first, to make it patent, to the Church and then to 
the world, that the great Christhood of revealed re^ 
ligion had culminated in actual, historic manhood j 
and second, in connection therewith, to give author- 
itative exposition and elaboration to the revealed 
doctrines and morals. How much of historic detail 
of occurrences would be useful to such ends is 
another question. We may presume we have as 
much as would be useful to us, though it be not at 
all satisfactory to our wishes. 

Moreover, we are but poorly informed as to the 
jurisprudence of either Jews or Romans, either civil, 
criminal, or ecclesiastical, in those times. Our infor- 



The Trial and Execution of Jesus. 305 

mation is in isolated scraps, and is very general. Ju- 
dea, but a part of little Palestine, was a petty Ro- 
man province, a sort of property of little hereditary 
tyrants. The civil government, as compared with 
almost anything seen in modern times, was disgrace- 
fully miserable. It was this way or that way, here 
and there, as prejudice, passion, bribery, and tyranny 
chanced to fancy. And it must be remembered, too, 
in those days human life was cheap. Cruelties and 
executions were commonplaces. 

Again, the very gospel of human salvation, from 
the very first, contemplated the sacrificial death of 
the human exhibition of the Godhead. Voluntary 
sacrifice, the extremest possible, lay at the founda- 
tion, and was inseparable from the idea of man's' 
justification before God. Without the shedding of 
blood there is no remission of sin. Not that the shed 
blood, or the shedding of it procures or produces the 
remission, but because nothing short of that, the 
knowledge of it on our part — could give us the 
proper sense of benevolence in a benefactor, which 
would be sufficient to produce the degree of depend- 
ence and humihty necessary to establish the natural 
relation of saved mendicant and independent Saviour. 
The voluntary death of the Saviour-victim, then, lay 
at the very foundation — nay, it was itself the very 
principle of human recovery. 

How the Saviour-man would die was an open 
question. Not only the death, but the manner of 
the death was essential. Suppose Jesus had died of 
sickness, as other men die. Then it were a failure, 
because that could not have produced the necessary 
effect in the heart of man. In such a death we 
could see, or be made to perceive very little of sacri- 



306 TheCity of aod. 

fice and self-denial. And we must remember thair 
nothing but sacrifice and seK-denial, in actually re- 
lieving the distresses of the distressed, can give ade- 
quate evidence of any considerable degree of benev- 
olence in a benefactor. Benefaction which costs but 
little gives no evidence of benevolence. 

The death of Jesus, then, as looked at by us, must 
be inflicted — nay, it must be cruelly and wickedly 
inflicted. In the very nature of things it was anom- 
alous. While, as Peter said on the day of Pentecost, 
it was the work of " wicked hands," it was but the 
regular administration of the law of the Church. 
The immediate legal cause of Jesus' death was that 
He claimed equaUty with God ; but the real, procur- 
ing cause was largely to be found in jealousy and 
rivalship of the members of the Sanhedrim. To 
suffer Him to live, they would lose office, place, and 
position. So that while the Jewish crucifiers were 
glad to vindicate and execute the law, they needed 
the law as their own vindication to back up and jus- 
tify their own conduct. 

Blasphemy was a capital offense by the law of the 
Church. And it is not at all certain that the death 
of Jesus was the only one of this sort, about this 
time. Gamahel, in his speech before the Sanhedrim, 
as cited in Acts v. 35-39, mentions two others, Theu- 
das and one Judas. Josephus speaks of a Theudas 
who played a similar part several years later, in the 
time of Claudius, and others along in periods not far 
distant. The times were turbulent ; the land was 
frequently overrun by insurrectionary chiefs. The 
notion prevailed in Judea somewhat, to what ex- 
tent we are not informed, that the Jewish Messias 
would be a civil prince, and free Judea, if not Pales- 



The Trial and Execution of Jesus. 307 

• 

tine and even much more of the empire, from the 
yoke of Rome. So the Messiahship seemed usually 
connected with the idea of civil insurrection. 

The execution of Theudas and of Judas were 
probably fresh in their recollection. And although 
they claimed the Messiahship, it is likely their civil 
offenses so far took the lead, that they were disposed 
of by Roman authority without much, if any, of 
ecclesiastical complaint on the part of the Jews. 

This was the point in Gamaliel's speech. He 
seemed to have the true idea of the Scriptural Mes- 
siah, and so argiTes — K Jesus is a false Messiah, 
like Theudas- and Judas, He will soon be checked 
as an insurrectionist by the civil power ; but if He 
proves to be the true Messiah, He will commit no' 
civil offense ; and surely you will not oppose God's 
true Messiah, lest haply you be found to fight 
agaiust God. 

That argument was very good so far as it went ; 
but it did not, and could not go far enough. The ec- 
clesiastical law denounced the death penalty against 
blasphemy, irrespective of any civil offense. The 
Jewish doctors said. We prove Him guilty of blas- 
phemy because, being a man. He maketh Himself 
God; and if He has not as yet committed overt 
insurrection. He soon will. It is dangerous to the 
government to suffer a man to go at large who 
claims supreme power.. If He is the Christ, let 
Him disprove the charge of blasphemy. Surely He 
can do that. 

Reasonable as that would seem, it was demanding 
an impossibiUty. The true Messiah must be appar- 
ently guilty of blasphemy, and so, liable to the death 
penalty. It is very difficult, nay, we may say it is 



308 The City of God. 

impossible, to judge a priori oi the proper proofs 
of the true Messiahship. ' It is very certain Jesus 
did. not convince anybody, not even his warmest and 
best friends, definitively and conclusively, that He 
was the real Christ. The most He did, and the most 
it would seem it was possible to do, was to create, 
in those in the best position to be informed, a high 
probabihty that He was what He claimed to be, the 
very Christ. 

The Scriptures everywhere hold, and reason also 
seems to hold, that a resurrection from the dead, 
and that alone, can give the final, conclusive proof of 
the Christship. This evidence is to be presented in 
the world but once. 

It is a principle in evidence, and a sound one, that 
nothing is conclusively proved until the best evidence 
the nature of the case admits of is adduced. Then 
how, in the nature of things, could Jesus while ahve 
prove certainly that He was Christ ? He could not. 
The nature of the case admits of better evidence 
than anything a live man can do or say. Resurrec- 
tion from the dead is the highest conceivable evi- 
dence, and nothing else is. 

Then Jesus being the very Christ, He was shut up 
by the very providence of God, and his own plan of 
redeeming the world, to the inescapable necessities 
of a judicial death. It was in this way that He 
planned a voluntary death. Much of the Sanhedrim 
may have voted with reluctance, but the law im- 
pelled them. Jesus did not convince his best friends 
conclusively ; and how then could it be expected of 
rival enemies, or cold, reluctant friends to be con- 
vinced ? 

So Jesus was virtually slain from the foundation 



The Trial and Execution of Jesus. 309 

of the world. His death was planned from the be- 
ginning. The seeming agents were but instruments. 
Verily they did, they knew not what. Mostly, no 
doubt, they were concerned about office, and place,- 
and salary, etc. Jesus could have arrested them and 
saved his own Hfe, but not without arresting the con- 
stitution and course of things ; and this would have 
arrested the entire course and progress of human sal- 
vation. 

Human salvation is looked at by many too super- 
ficially. It is a far greater thing than many sup- 
pose. Many of its aspects are no doubt far beyond 
human thought or conception. It had to meet the 
necessities of the case. And some of these necessi- 
ties were the constitution of man, and the circum- 
stances of human condition. To change man's con- 
stitution, and place him in different relations to God 
and nature, would not be salvation. It was man 
that was to be saved. The mode was planned by 
infinite wisdom. The instruments were adapted to 
the ends. A Christhood, supposed and explained, 
and the thing is conceivable. To be Godlike, salva- 
tion must be ^vithin reach of all men. Partial sal- 
vation, restricted as to times, places, countries, peo- 
ples, chronology, — is unworthy the God we adore. 
A " temporary system," " confined to the Jews," or 
confined at all, looks Lilliputian. To be Godlike, it 
must be plenary and world-wide. And so it was, 
and is. How could the great Almighty measure and 
dole out salvation by an almanac and a surveyor's 
chain, or the petty jurisdiction of some ephemeral 
king or usurper ? God deals with man, and dis- 
criminates only between those who are obedient and 
those who are not. 



310 The City of God, 

That aspect of the Godhead which we call Christ, 
the Divine Son, undertook the enterprise of renovat- 
ing this world. He began at the right time, and in 
'the right way. The time was before any man died ; 
and the way was by the voluntary suffering and 
denial of his own self. That part of the work 
which was designed for the sensible observance of 
men was not, for natural and obvious reasons, per- 
formed at the very first, but somewhat later in the 
world's history. So this event was, of course, chron- 
ological ; and so, part of the Avorld's history was 
before, and part after. But the Christship no more 
began at this period than the Godhead began at 
some chronological date. Dates and dividing Knes 
refer to human things, not to great, plenary, divine 
operations. 

The death of Jesus was the death of the son of 
Mary, but did not affect the Christhood. The son 
of Mary lived but the very brief space of one third 
part of a single century ; but Christ is coeval with 
the coeternal years of God. 

As to the Church, that naturally takes care of 
itself. Christianity supposed, the Church is abso- 
lutely unavoidable. Internal piety, not external 
laws, makes the Church. Christians associate relig- 
iously for the enjoyment and promotion of Christian- 
ity from the very necessities of the case. It would 
be no more of a contradiction to suppose that Chris- 
tians did not love God and each other, and did not 
love private, public, and social worship, than to sup- 
pose rehgion without a Church. Social and pubHc 
worship are as naturally and as necessarily the con- 
sequence of individual piety, as that the social con- 
stitution produces its legitimate results in any other 



The Trial and Execution of Jesus, 311 

departments of life. The Church is the confluent 
result of personal religion, because of the social grav- 
itation which is the controlling religious ingredient. 
A thing is the result of its ingredients. 

And then, Christianity supposes a ministry, and 
fellowship ; that is, personal membership ; and so, 
all the other external machinery of a Church. 
Christians who do not attend to, labor and partici- 
pate in these things, are not Christians. Religion 
and the Church coinhere, coexist and cosupport each 
other. They are not two separate things, but two 
aspects of one and the same thing. They are sepa- 
rable only as filial love and duty are separable, in 
reference to the father and the mother. But filial 
duty includes both. 

Before the actual life and suffering of the Messiah, 
the pious man looked to these sacrifices and self de- 
nials — adumbrantly it certainly was, because it 
could not possibly be otherwise — from the position 
he occupied. He had Moses and the prophets. 
Their teachings are slightly but clearly hinted at in 
the writings of the Old Testament. After these 
things transpired, the pious man beholds the very 
same thing from a different point of observation. 
Before, the Christian could only speak or think of 
sacrifice : now he thinks and speaks of crucifixion ; 
still, they are one and the same thing. The cross is 
but an instrument of vicarious sacrifice and self-de- 
nial. We remember what was formerly anticipated. 
But the great death underhes the whole. In both 
cases the pious man has something besides mere ex- 
ternal information to rely upon as the pillar of his 
faith. Human knowledge has two sources, testi- 
mony and consciousness ; the one addresses his 



312 The City of aod. 

senses, the other his mind. So with the Christian ; 
there are the testimonies, here the witnessing Spirit. 
Glorious system ! God is merciful ! Jesus suf- 
fered ! And the man of faith and obedience is jus- 
tified ! 



INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS REFERRED TO 
IN THE SECTION "ERRORS OF AUTHORS." 



Abbey, 161. 

Alexander, 177. 

American Bible Society, 109-111, 

141. 
American Cyclopaedia, 116, 133. 
American Tract Society, 97-100. 

Bangs, 9. 

Barnes, 59. 

Barth, 195. 

Belcher, 38. 

Bcllarmine, 130. 

Benson, 152. 

Benson, G., 139. 

Binney, 106. 

Bloomfield, 33. 

Bridges, 196. 

Brown, 189. 

Bryant, 188. 

Buck's Dictionary, 6, 23, 204. 

Burnet, 187. 

Bushnell, 132. 

Butler, 61-65. 



Clarke, 5, 6, 9, 68, 87, 102-104, 184. 

Coleman, 17, 24. 

Coleridge, 195. 

Collyer, 199. 

Comprehensive Commentary, 166. 

Conybeare and Howson, 11, 12, 

19-21, 80, 183, 184. 
Cookman, 89. 
Covel's Dictionary, 116. 
Cudworth, 105. 

D'Aubign^, 74, 75. 
Dick, 35, 179. 
Dixon, 115. 
Doddridge, 73, 72. 
Dwight, 67. 

Eadie, 33. 

Ebrard, 66., 

Ecce Deus Homo, 44, 45. 

Ecce Homo, 190. 

Edwards, 89, 90, 92. 

EUiott, 141-143. 



Calmet, 59. 

Calvin, 53-55. 

Campbell, 78. 

Campbell, A., 148, 160. 

Cave, 82, 83, 91. 

Celsus, 28. 

Chalmers, 34. 

Chapman, 162. 

Chateaubriand, 128. 

Christian Remembrancer, 58. 

Clark, S., 148. 



Fairbairn, 135, 193, 201-203. 
Farrar, 59. 

Fleetwood, 147, 180, 192. 
Fletcher, 150. 

Gieseler, 119, 120. 
Grey son, 71. 

Hagenbach, 55, 56. 
Hales, 146. 
Hall, 92. 



314 



Index of Authors. 



Harbaugh, 171. 

Hare, 150. 

Henderson, 78. 

Henry, 30, 31, 68, 78, 79, 87, 147, 

172. 
Hey, 86. 
Hicks, 157. 
Hobart, 86, 147. 
Hook, 85, 157. 
Hopkins, 163-165. 
Home, 41, 75, 76. 
Hanter, 153. 

Jacobus, 70, 71, 148. 
Jahn, 7, 12. 
Jenks, 151. 
Jenyns, 130, 131. 
Jimeson, 66. 

Keith, 25, 29, 34. 
King, 8. 
Kitto, 13, 35. 
Knapp, 152. 

Lange, 205-207. 

Lardner, 32. 

Latimer, 91. 

Lee, 129. 

Leigh, 100. 

Leland, 200. 

Liddon, 57. 

Lightfoot, 147. 

Lives of the Apostles, 143. 

Longking, 84. 

Lyttleton, 150. 

McClintock and Strong, 46, 51, 52, 

58. 
MacEwen, 194. 
Mcllvaine, 117, 118. 
Macknight, 5, 23, 29, 37, 91, 92, 

174. 
Marvin, 144. 
Means, 76. 
Melville, 102, 119. 
Methodist Catechism, 115. 
Michaelis, 100. 



Milligan, 44. 
Milman, 3, 4, 134. 
More, 101. 
Morris, 83. 
Mosheim, 73, 153. 
Murphy, 33. 

Neander, 47, 48, 55 

Nelson, 68. 

Nevin, 1. 

New Biblical Atlas, 43. 

Newcomb, 178. 

Newton, 148. 

Olin, 177. 
Olivers, 99, 184. 
Olshausen, 26, 30, 108, 149. 
Onderdonk, 133. 
Owen, 36, 69. 

Paley, 151, 177, 181. 

Palfrey, 89, 188. 

Parker, 81. 

Patrick, Lowth, and Whitby, 58, 

59. 
Pearce, Bishop, 105. 
Peck, 121. 
Percy, 74. 
Philip, 93, 94. 
Philpotts, 129. 
Pierce, B.K., 102. 
Pierce, L., 76. 
Powell, 154-156, 162. 
Pi^tt, Woodford & Co.'s edition of 

the Bible, 96. 
Prideaux, 88. 

Quintard, 90. 

Raffles, 102. ' 

Raphall, Rabbi, 145. 

Reinhard, 152. 

Religious Enyclopsedia, 22, 23. 

Renan, 77, 107. 

Rice, 197. 

Robbins, 66. 

Ruter's Gregory, 1, 10. 



Index of Authors. 



315 



Sawyer, 169, 170. 

Schaff, 2, 3, 16, 168, 181, 182. 

Schenkel, 56, 57. 

Schottgen, 146. 

Scott, 88, 157, 176. 

Seabury, 108, 116, 153. 

Sewel, 122. 

Sherlock, 147 

Smith, 2, 11. 

Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, 158, 

159. 
Stevens, 15, 24. 
Stier, 153, 189. 
Stillingfleet, 16, 171. 
Stone, 198. 
Stuart, 38-40, 69, 122-127 

Tacitus, 134. 
Tappan, 72. 
Taylor, 14, 15. 



Thompson, 80. 
Toinard, 105. 
Tomlin, 65. 
Trench, 151. 

Union Bible Dictionary, 146. 

Van Doren, 61. 

"Warburton, 149. 

Watson, 111-114, 132, 167, 175. 

Watson, Bishop, 185, 186. 

Watts, 118. 

Wesley, 121, 135. 

Wesleyan Catechism, 150. 

Whately, 136-140. 

Whedon, 48-52. 

WiUiams, 69. 

Young, 94-96. 



6R(^) 







<%:i:; 



sn-i 



